Extract to table

This ambiguity — created entirely by Ironclad's own failure to issue clean endorsement language reflecting the negotiated terms — must, under settled Florida law, be construed against the insurer-drafter and in favor of coverage

As set forth in the Argument section below, this discrepancy creates, at a minimum, an ambiguity that must be resolved against Ironclad as the policy drafter under Florida's well-established contra proferentem doctrine

The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts

When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor

Orde testified that VHG, through its Vice President of Risk Management Sandra Pellegrini, communicated a clear instruction to Tidewater: the $15 million named-windstorm sub-limit in the prior-year Ironclad primary policy must be deleted as a condition of the renewal

Kestrel Specialty Insurance, the Court held that where policy language is "susceptible to two reasonable interpretations," the interpretation favoring coverage must be adopted