In a recent ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal, the issue of ambiguity as it pertains to an insurance contract was addressed. See Redland Ins. Co. v. CEM Site Constructors, Inc, 86 So.3d 1259 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012). The Redland decision addressed issue regarding ambiguity of the definition for the term, “driver”, on a commercial auto insurance policy. The trial court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment finding that no disputed issue remained.
On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment. The Second District Court held that the issue of ambiguity involved a material question of fact not appropriate for summary judgment. The appellate court noted that there remained disputed issues of fact in the instant case which focused on the policy language and the application for insurance and the clarity of the language as it pertained to the definition for the term “driver”.