Court Opinion

ID: 9653523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:48:18.108023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:59.847290
License: Public Domain

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge
(specially concurring).
I concur because the subject of the so-called “ambiguity” — whether the name of the assignor-provider, whose actual identity was never in doubt, was on the right place on the form — was utterly meaningless, so that, however resolved, it could not conceivably justify a denial of liability. See Rader v. Prather, 100 Fla. 591, 130 So. 15 (1930); Mayedo v. Oolite Indus., Inc., 566 So.2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The affirmance of the directly contrary conclusion of the county court granting summary judgment for the insurer on that ground *1109was thus a genuine, even outrageous, miscarriage of justice.