DORTICOS v. INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY (2026)

Affirmed. See Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. W. Fla. Vill. Inn, Inc., 874 So. 2d 26, 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“[A] single policy provision should not be considered in isolation, but rather, the contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms as set forth in the policy and as amplified by the policy application, endorsements, or riders.”); Larusso v. Garner, 888 So. 2d 712, 717 & n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that an ambiguity in the upper portion of the form did not create an ambiguity as to the coverage selected in the lower portion of the form as insured “checked the box for non-stacked uninsured motorist coverage and ․ received and remitted the premium for such coverage”); § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“If this form is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits on behalf of all insureds.”); State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 330 So. 3d 67, 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (holding that “[t]he form, the renewal declaration, and the policy ․ [were] susceptible of only one reasonable interpretation: Mr. Schnitz knowingly selected non-stacking coverage”).

PER CURIAM.