Court Opinion

ID: 9957012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 15:05:05.130008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:02.730505
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed April 3, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-2107
                        Lower Tribunal No. 20-9667
                           ________________

                         Ramash Realty, LLC,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

         Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, etc.,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina
Beovides, Judge.

     Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellant.

     TorresVictor, and Anna D. Torres (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and MILLER, JJ.

     EMAS, J.
      Ramash Realty, LLC appeals the trial court’s final summary judgment

entered in favor of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London. The dispute

between the parties centered on the proper construction of certain provisions

of an insurance policy regarding calculation and application of the deductible

amount. Upon our de novo review, Chandler v. Geico Indem. Co., 78 So. 3d

1293, 1296 (Fla. 2011) (“The issue in this case stems from a trial court's

ruling on summary judgment based upon the interpretation of an insurance

contract which causes our standard of review to be de novo.”), we affirm

entry of summary judgment and hold the trial court properly construed and

applied the relevant terms of the policy. See Travelers Indem. Co., v. PCR

Inc., 889 So. 2d 779, 785 (Fla. 2004) (“If the language used in an insurance

policy is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in

accordance with the plain meaning of the language used so as to give effect

to the policy as it was written.”); Pride Clean Restoration Inc. v. Certain

Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 331 So. 3d 841, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)

(reaffirming that “when analyzing an insurance contract, it is necessary to

examine the contract in its context and as a whole, and to avoid simply

concentrating on certain limited provisions to the exclusion of the totality of

others.” (quoting Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So. 2d 161,

165 (Fla. 2003))). See also Royale Green Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Aspen

                                      2
Specialty Ins. Co., No. 07-21404-CIV, 2008 WL 2074383, at *3 (S.D. Fla.

May 14, 2008) (“The policy is not particularly simple, but requiring analysis

to determine the scope and meaning of the contract does not mean an

ambiguity exists.” (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.,

639 So. 2d 63, 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“The fact that an insurance policy

requires analysis to comprehend its scope does not mean it is ambiguous.”

(citation omitted)))).

      Affirmed.

                                     3