20 February

Sticky

Ambiguity in Insurance Policy Interpreted in Favor of Insured

When it comes to insurance policies, it is important to consider: If the relevant policy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and the other limiting coverage, the insurance policy is considered ambiguous. Ambiguous policy provisions are interpreted in favor of the insured. Security First Ins. Co. v. Vazquez, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D487b (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Vazquez exemplifies an ambiguous insurance provision interpreted in favor of the insured. Here, the property insurance policy contained an endorsement with a $10,000 sublimit for, “Sudden and accidental direct physical loss to covered property by discharge of overflow of water or...

01 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Quick Note: An Ambiguous Agreement will Lead to Admissibility of Parol Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

In an earlier article I explained that parol evidence (extrinsic evidence) is inadmissible to determine the intent of an unambiguous agreement. The corollary is that parol evidence is admissible to determine the intent of an ambiguous agreement. Naturally, parties want their agreements to be clear—crystal clear—to avoid any argument regarding an ambiguity. For example, in a recent case, a commercial lease was deemed ambiguous regarding the tenant’s lease rate. As a result, the landlord could not ram its commercial eviction claim through the court due to what it claimed to be the tenant not paying the right lease rate. Instead, evidence needed...

27 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Determine Intent of Unambiguous Agreement

Posted by David Adelstein

in Uncategorized

Extrinsic or parol evidence is inadmissible to determine the meaning or intent of an unambiguous agreement. See Restoration 1 CFL v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1600331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (error to allow deposition testimony regarding party’s interpretation of assignment when assignment agreement was unambiguous). “The parol-evidence rule is a substantive rule of law and reduced to its essence, provides that a written document intended by the parties to be the final embodiment of their agreement may not be contradicted, modified or varied by parol evidence.” King v. Bray, 867 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). While there is...

11 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Draft Agreements with Clarity or…

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

If you ever want to know why a contract or any agreement should be clearly written, here is the reason. In a recent case, 41 Acquisition Holdings, LLC v. Haff, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1127a (Fla. 3d DCA 2023), the settlement agreement contained the following language: The court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this agreement and, an enforcement action or motion, if any, shall be made by the party claiming a breach against the party alleged to have committed the breach and shall not affect any party who is not alleged to have breach this agreement and the prevailing party in any enforcement...

14 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Contract Interpretation; Force Majeure; Impossibility; Impracticability; Frustration of Purpose — All in One Case

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Covid-19 created a number of hardships to businesses. No doubt about it. The case of Fitness International, LLC v. 93 FLRPT, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D947a (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) exemplifies one such hardship. The issue in this case was how “government-ordered restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic impact[ed] the parties’ obligations under a commercial real estate lease.” In essence, a gym--tenant--had a commercial lease. The gym sought a refund for a fifteen-week period that it was required to close or operate below full capacity due to government-imposed restrictions. Unfortunately for the gym, it lost its arguments under all theories from breach...

01 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Exculpatory Clauses will be Strictly Construed to Determine Enforceability

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Do you know what an exculpatory clause is? My guess is that you signed more than one document with such a clause even if you are unfamiliar with what the clause is called. I know I have signed way more than one document with such a clause. An exculpatory clause is basically a full-blown liability waiver / damages waiver and release clause that you are signing on the frontend before an incident may occur. However, because of the devastatingly harsh effect these clauses can have if an incident does occur (by serving as a get out of jail free cause...

24 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Enforceability of a Himalaya Clause

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A “Himalaya” clause. I just learned what this type of provision is called. A Himalaya clause attempts to extend limitation of liability provisions including forum selection provisions to persons other than the contracting party. Aquachile, Inc. v. Williams, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D30c (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Regarding a Himalaya clause’s enforceability: Himalaya clauses are construed, according to general principles of contract interpretation, “by their terms and consistent with the intent of the parties.” The court must determine whether the plain language of the contract as a whole reflects an intent to extend limitations of liability to the party seeking protection. Any...

28 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Proposals for Settlements and Attaching Releases

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

I have discussed proposals for settlement (also known as offers of judgment) in a number of prior articles. A proposal for settlement is a procedural vehicle used to facilitate a settlement and create a basis to recover attorney’s fees from the date of the proposal on forward if the proposal for settlement is not accepted and the net judgment comes within a certain amount. Serving a proposal for settlement, and the strategic timing if one is served, should be discussed with your counsel. It should also be discussed with counsel the pros and cons of rejecting a proposal for settlement...

25 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Declaration Cannot Take Away Common Elements in a Condominium

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

The recent case of IconBrickell Condominium No. Three Association, Inc. v. New Media Consulting, LLC, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2272a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) is an interesting case discussing the common elements of a condominium where the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, found that the Declaration governing a condominium violates Florida’s Condominium Act (Florida Statutes Chapter 718) because it “impermissibly divested residential unit owners of their undivided share in the common elements of the condominium.” Because the Declaration took away common elements from residential unit owners, it was determined that doing so was contrary to the law. The...

04 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Arbitrability of a Dispute – Does a Judge or Arbitrator Decide?

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

If you are involved in a dispute, the initial sentiment is to file a lawsuit and let a judge or jury decide the merits if it is not resolved in the interim. Another way to resolve a dispute is through binding arbitration. Frankly, with the uncertainty surrounding the judicial system right now, arbitration is not a bad way to go and likely the more efficient way to go, irrespective of the added administrative costs. The key with arbitration is that it is a creature of contract. This means there needs to be an arbitration provision in an agreement for the...