Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package Store

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that every provision in a contract should be given meaning
• holding that where the Department of Insurance has not detected a violation in a policy, “Section 627.418 is designed to guarantee that the courts not bar coverage to policy holders because their contracts contain a condition or provision which violates the [I]n-surance [C]ode”
• explaining that the rule requiring ambiguities to be inter- preted against the drafter “does not allow courts to rewrite con- tracts [or] add meaning that is not present”
• prohibiting courts from “rewrit[ing] contracts, add[ing] meaning that is not present, or otherwise reach[ing] results contrary to the intentions of the parties”
• observing that the policy and application should be construed together
• noting the Florida rule requiring the interpretation of ambiguous insurance policies in favor of coverage applies “[o]nly when a genuine inconsistency, uncertainty, or ambiguity in meaning remains after resort to the ordinary rules of construction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).