In many cases litigation arises regarding the language of an insurance contract. Often times the respective parties disagree as to how the language of the insurance contract should be interpreted as it may result in the language being interpreted against one party.
In a recent case from the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida this issue was again addressed.
In the case of Nawaz v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. So.3rd FLW D1402 (Fla. 4th DCA 6-13-2012) the appellate court held that it was error for the trial court to fail to give effect to the plain language of the insurance policy. In the Nawaz case the trial court determined that the insurance policy excluded public adjusters from attendance at sworn statements even though the policy itself was silent as to the presence of public adjusters.
The 4th District Court of Appeal relied on past case law precedent that establishes that “where the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, the court can give to it no meaning other than that expressed.” The 4th DCA held that the plain language of the contract was clear and that by ignoring the plain language of the contract, the trial court essentially improperly rewrote the contract.