8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 762b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Rescission of policy — Material misrepresentations on application — Action for PIP benefits, brought by passenger in insured’s vehicle — Record contains substantial competent evidence to support summary judgment in favor of plaintiff who argued that requirement that insured list “all operators of the vehicles listed above and all persons whom have reached the age of 15 and reside with the named insured” only required insured to list persons who were household residents over the age of 15 and operators of the vehicle
OCEAN HARBOR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. BOBBY CROSBY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 00-22086 (09). September 14, 2001. Robert Lance Andrews, Judge.
ORDER AND OPINION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon direct appeal from an Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Bobby Crosby, and against Defendant/Appellant, Ocean Harbor Insurance Company, and the Court having considered same, having reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties, and being otherwise duly advised in premises, finds and decides as follows:
This appeal arises from a summary judgment on liability granted in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellee, Bobby Crosby, a passenger in a motor vehicle owned by Defendant/Appellant’s insured, Darlene Gentry. Plaintiff sued Defendant for PIP benefits, which Defendant answered and defended on the grounds that the insured made a material misrepresentation on her application for insurance, which voided the policy ab initio. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the application at issue was ambiguous as a matter of law. Said application asked that the named insured list “all operators of the vehicles listed above and all persons whom have reached the age of 15 and reside with the named insured. Plaintiff argued in support of the motion for summary judgment that the application only required the insured to list persons who are “household residents over 15 years of age and operators of the vehicle.” Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, responding that it could not be reasonably argued that the application was ambiguous because the application clearly asked for the names of all persons who resided with the named insured who were over 15. Further, Defendant argued that it sent the insured a refund of her premium and that check was cashed, thereby effectively rescinding the policy from its inception. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and this timely appeal follows.
The order granting summary judgment did not contain a recital of the trial court’s findings, and therefore the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed by this Court if there is any theory or principle of law upon the pleading and evidence before us to support the judgment. See First National Bank of Clearwater v. Morse, 248 So.2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). This court, having considered the grounds for the appeal, the briefs filed, having heard argument and reviewed the transcripts, and applicable law, in a light most favorable to Appellant, finds that the record reveals substantial competent evidence to support the judgment of the trial court on the issue. See Harris v. Carolina Life Insurance Co., 233 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1970); see also 6 Couch on Insurance §82:23 (3d ed.).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, Bobby Crosby, is AFFIRMED.
* * *
