2 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 362b
Insurance — Automobile — Application — Trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of insured based upon its finding as matter of law that application form contained ambiguous language
UNITED AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. ARMANDO GUTIERREZ, Appellee. 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Appellate Division. Case No. 93-324 AP. Opinion Filed July 15, 1994. An Appeal from County Court, Civil Division, Dade County, Honorable Ann Mason Parker, Judge. Counsel: Beth Gordon, for appellant. Libby-Herrera-Navarette, for appellee.
(Before ALLEN KORNBLUM, EUGENE FIERRO, and BARBARA S. LEVENSON, JJ.)
(LEVENSON, J.) Appellant challenges the order granting the summary judgment motion of appellee (plaintiff below) and denying the summary judgment motion of appellant (defendant below).
This Court has jurisdiction. No justiciable issue of fact remained to be resolved after the orders below were rendered.1 A motion to strike the Notice of Appeal, filed in the trial court could not be heard there as jurisdiction is in this court once the Notice of Appeal is filed.
The lower court’s decision is accorded a presumption of correctness. General Insurance Co. v. Ramanovsy, 443 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
The lower court found that the application form of appellant insurer contained ambiguous language.
As a matter of law, ambiguous language must be interpreted in favor of the insured. See, Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Cas. Ins. Co., 19 Fla. L. Weekly D855 (Fla. 5th DCA, April 15, 1994); Lindheimer v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2307 (Fla. 3d DCA, Oct. 26, 1993); Williams v. General Insurance Co., 468 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) .
This Court need not reach the factual issue raised by the appellant, regarding the categorization of the driver of appellee’s automobile, since the court below found the application form to contain ambiguous language.
Once the court below made this finding as a matter of law, no question remained upon which a jury could deliberate. Therefore the orders below are AFFIRMED. (KORNBLUM and FIERRO, JJ., concur.)
— — — —
1The parties have stipulated to the amount of damages.
* * *
