Washington National Insurance v. Ruderman
Supreme Court of Florida
1DissentPolston, C.J.
I respectfully dissent. The insurance policy is not ambiguous. It means what it plainly says, that the insurer “will increase the Home Health Care Daily Benefit payable under this policy by the Automatic Benefit Increase Percentage shown on the schedule page.” (Emphasis added.) No reference is made to increasing the Per Occurrence Maximum Benefit and the Lifetime Maximum Benefit Amount, which are both defined without reference to the automatic increase and listed separately as line items on the schedule page. Moreover, if the policy was ambiguous, our precedent requires allowing the admission…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
- Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2003
- Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package StoreSupreme Court of Florida · 1979
- Deni Associates of Florida, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1998
- Puryear v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2002
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.