Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Arch-Holmes-Broder-Nottingham Insurance Co.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Arch-Holmes-Broder-Nottingham Insurance Co.
Opinion of the Court
We affirm the summary final judgment because the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the loss in question was covered under the builders risk policy. See Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 1985) (construction of insurance policy in defining scope of coverage is legal question to be determined by court); Tire Kingdom, Inc. v. First Southern Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 885, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (coverage found where conflicting provisions created ambiguity regarding coverage; “insurance policy
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.