PROJEKT PROPERTY RESTORATION INC v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

PROJEKT PROPERTY RESTORATION, INC., a/a/o Daniel Luna, Appellant, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 3D21-79

Decided: February 02, 2022

Before LOGUE, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

Font & Nelson, PLLC and Jose P. Font (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant. Paul R. Pearcy, P.A. and Maureen G. Pearcy; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, and Joseph V. Manzo, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528, 532 (Fla. 2005) (“[I]nsurance contracts are interpreted according to the plain language of the policy except ‘when a genuine inconsistency, uncertainty, or ambiguity in meaning remains after resort to the ordinary rules of construction.’ ” (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pridgen, 498 So. 2d 1245, 1248 (Fla. 1986))); Hagen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 675 So. 2d 963, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“[I]f a policy ․ is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms.”); Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., 969 So. 2d 288, 291 (Fla. 2007) (“A [policy] is not ambiguous simply because it is complex or requires analysis.”); Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hradecky, 208 So. 3d 184, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“[T]o the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network