Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
STAR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY, INC., A/A/O JESUS PORTAL
Citation: Not availableDocket: 21-0064
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 8, 2021; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Star Casualty Insurance Company appeals a final judgment against it in a breach of contract case brought by Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc., following the trial court's denial of Star Casualty's motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The underlying dispute arose after Jesus Portal sustained injuries in a 2008 automobile accident and assigned his no-fault insurance benefits to two medical providers, who subsequently assigned their rights to Gables. In 2011, Gables initiated two lawsuits against Star Casualty for breach of contract related to the improper calculation of fee structures, referred to as the "X-Ray litigation" and the "PT litigation." On September 15, 2016, Star Casualty confessed judgment in the PT litigation, resulting in a settlement agreement. However, the X-Ray litigation continued until Star Casualty filed a motion in 2019 to enforce the 2017 settlement, claiming it encompassed all claims from Portal’s accident, including those in the X-Ray litigation. Gables contended that the settlement was limited to attorney fees and costs in the PT litigation and moved for sanctions. The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing, where Star Casualty argued for a broad interpretation of the settlement agreement, while Gables maintained there was no mutual understanding regarding the X-Ray litigation. The court ultimately denied Star Casualty's motion. Upon review, the appellate court determined that the settlement agreement contained a latent ambiguity, warranting an evidentiary hearing to clarify the parties' intentions. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that ambiguities in contract language necessitate factual inquiries, which cannot be resolved without considering extrinsic evidence. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, specifically an evidentiary hearing to explore the ambiguity in the settlement agreement.