Strama v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a contract is ambiguous because it is susceptible to different interpretations, parol evidence is admissible to explain or clarify ambiguous term
• recognizing where an ambiguous provision in a contract is susceptible to more than one interpretation, there is an issue of fact as to the parties’ intent that cannot properly be resolved by summary judgment
• noting that “where the terms of the written instrument are disputed and reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, an issue of fact is presented as to the parties’ intent which cannot properly be resolved by summary judgment.”
• quot- ing Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
• alteration added; quoting Friedman v. Va. Metal Prods. Corp., 56 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1952)
• “When ‘there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the interpretation that the parties gave the ambiguous contract provision,’ summary judgment is inappropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).