Florida Court Reaffirms Extrinsic Evidence is Not Permitted to Resolve Ambiguity in an Insurance Contract

In Washington National Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So.3d 943 (Fla. 2013) the Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court asking the following question: “If an ambiguity exists in [an] insurance policy … should [Florida] courts first attempt to resolve the ambiguity by examining available extrinsic evidence?” The Eleventh Circuit expressed doubt that Florida law was settled on whether an ambiguous insurance policy should be strictly construed against the insurer or whether extrinsic evidence must first be allowed in an attempt to clarify any potential ambiguity.

The uncertainty of the Eleventh Circuit was based upon the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package Store, 369 So.2d 938 (Fla. 1979). The focus of the Eleventh Circuit’s confusion was on the statement by the Florida Supreme Court in Excelsior referring to a rule requiring construction of ambiguous policy language against the drafter as follows: “only when a genuine inconsistency, uncertainty, or ambiguity in meaning remains after resort to the ordinary rules of construction is the rule apposite.”

In Ruderman, the Florida Supreme Court made it clear that nothing in its prior Excelsior decision expressly held that extrinsic evidence must be considered in determining if an ambiguity exists. Additionally, the Court noted that nothing in its prior Excelsior decision constituted an implicit declaration that resort must be made to consideration of extrinsic evidence before an insurance policy was found to be ambiguous and construed against the insurer under Florida law. See Ruderman, 117 So.3d at 949.

The Court then provided a lengthy tutorial regarding the ambiguity rule in Florida. Put simply, under Florida law, the Court will read the insurance policy as a whole endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and operative effect while liberally construing the policy in favor of coverage and strictly against the insurer. Ruderman, 117 So.3d at 949-50, citing numerous Florida Supreme Court case authority. If the Court reads the policy as a whole and still finds that there is an ambiguity, then the ambiguity will be construed against the insurer.

The Florida Supreme Court in Ruderman makes clear that Florida courts will not consider extrinsic evidence in trying to resolve policy ambiguities. The Court in Ruderman rejected the modern view of the contra proferentem principle which would permit the examination of extrinsic evidence together with analysis of the policy language in order to resolve apparent ambiguities.