December 10, 1993.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, Rom W. Powell, J.
Darrell F. Carpenter, Wells, Gattis, Hallowes Carpenter, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Randall M. Bolinger, Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hart, Donahue McLain, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.
Appellant, who seeks personal injury protection benefits under a policy of liability insurance covering an automobile in which he was a passenger, appeals a summary final judgment below rendered in favor of Armor Insurance Company. The lower court found that the insured gave false and misleading information to the insurer in her application by failing to identify a person whom she knew may, in the future, drive the insured vehicle. The lower court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Armor because there is evidence in the record that would permit a jury to find that the insured's answer to the particular question on the application was not false or misleading.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
GOSHORN, J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion.
I fully concur with the majority. Additionally, as applied to the facts of this case, I find ambiguity in the policy application question which elicited the allegedly false or misleading response. This ambiguity must be construed in favor of the policyholder. See Harris v. Carolina Life Ins. Co., 233 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1970); Abrams v. General Ins. Co., 508 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Gaskins v. General Ins. Co. of Fla., 397 So.2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The policy application asked:
2. Have all drivers, such as children away from home or in college, who may operate your vehicle on a REGULAR or INFREQUENT basis, been listed on this application? [Emphasis in original].