Opinion
No. 3D21-79
02-02-2022
PROJEKT PROPERTY RESTORATION, INC., a/a/o Daniel Luna, Appellant, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Font & Nelson, PLLC and Jose P. Font (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant. Paul R. Pearcy, P.A. and Maureen G. Pearcy ; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, and Joseph V. Manzo, for appellee.
Font & Nelson, PLLC and Jose P. Font (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.
Paul R. Pearcy, P.A. and Maureen G. Pearcy ; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, and Joseph V. Manzo, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528, 532 (Fla. 2005) ("[I]nsurance contracts are interpreted according to the plain language of the policy except ‘when a genuine inconsistency, uncertainty, or ambiguity in meaning remains after resort to the ordinary rules of construction.’ " (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pridgen, 498 So. 2d 1245, 1248 (Fla. 1986) )); Hagen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 675 So. 2d 963, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ("[I]f a policy ... is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms."); Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., 969 So. 2d 288, 291 (Fla. 2007) ("A [policy] is not ambiguous simply because it is complex or requires analysis."); Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hradecky, 208 So. 3d 184, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("[T]o the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls.").