Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Orthopedic Specialists, as Assignee of Kelli Serridge v. Allstate Insurance Company
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided August 19, 2015No. 4D14-287, 4D14-288, 4D14-289, 4D14-290, 4D14-291, 4D14-292, 4D14-293, 4D14-294, 4D14-295, 4D14-296, 4D14-297, 4D14-298, 4D14-299, 4D14-300, 4D14-301, 4D14-302, 4D14-303, 4D14-304, 4D14-305, 4D14-306, 4D14-307, 4D14-308, 4D14-309, 4D14-310, 4D14-311, 4D14-312, 4D14-313, 4D14-314, 4D14-315, 4D14-316, 4D14-317 and 4D14-318Published
1ConcurrenceLevine, J.
I concur with the majority opinion and find that the language drafted by Allstate in its policy is ambiguous and thus compels a reversal.
In considering the specific provisions of this insurance contract, this case at its core rests on the following determination: if the provisions are unambiguous, then the insured has the sufficient notice required by the Florida Supreme Court in Virtual Imaging. However, if the provisions in question are ambiguous or can be susceptible to differing interpretations, then the insured does not have the sufficient notice mandated. “Policy language is considered…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Scott v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Gutierrez De Martinez v. LamagnoSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Moore v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. Montalvo-MurilloSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2003
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.