Covert v. South Florida Stadium Corp., 3D99-1522.

• Decision Date: 17 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 3D99-1522.,3D99-1522.
• Citation: 762 So.2d 938
• Parties: Michael James COVERT, M.D., Appellant, v. SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM CORP., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

762 So.2d 938

Michael James COVERT, M.D., Appellant, v. SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM CORP., Appellee.

No. 3D99-1522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 17, 2000.

Rehearing Denied July 19, 2000.

McGrane and Nosich, and Rhea P. Grossman, for appellant.

Marlow, Connell, Valerius, Abrams, Adler and Newman, and William G. Edwards, for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, GODERICH, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant/plaintiff Michael James Covert, M.D. appeals a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the appellee/defendant South Florida Stadium Corp [Stadium]. We reverse.

Covert sued the Stadium for personal injuries he sustained while attending a Miami Dolphin football game at Pro Player Stadium as a club-level season-ticket holder when allegedly intoxicated fans beat him up. The trial court found that the affirmative defense raised by the Stadium based on an exculpatory clause contained in the contract signed by Covert when he purchased his season tickets entitled the Stadium to judgment on the pleadings. Under the terms of the clause, the Stadium is relieved of liability for negligence and is also indemnified for any payments it is required to make in the event of injury caused by the ticket holder or any one else.¹ Covert denied the affirmative defense and responded that the exculpatory clause was illegal as against the public interest and lacked mutuality. He also argued that an ambiguity was created in the contract because, in another clause, the contract states that it does not confer any greater or lesser rights and privileges to Covert than to any other ticket holder.²

In Scarborough Assoc. v. Financial Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Dade County, 647 So.2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), this Court, quoting from Yunkers v. Yunkers, 515 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), explained the heavy burden the moving party must meet in order to prevail on a motion for judgment on the pleadings:

In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings material allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false. Conclusions of law also are not deemed admitted for purposes of the motion. The court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of the non-moving party. Judgment on the pleadings can be granted only if, on the facts as admitted for purposes of the motion, the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment.

We have also held that "[e]xculpatory provisions which attempt to relieve a party of his or her own negligence are generally looked upon with disfavor, and Florida law requires that such clauses be strictly construed against the party claiming to be relieved of liability." Sunny Isles Marina, Inc. v. Adulami, 706 So.2d 920, 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). For such provisions to be found valid and enforceable by Florida courts, the intention of the parties must be made clear and unequivocal. Id. As stated in Hertz Corp. v. David Klein Mfg., Inc., 636 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994):

Such clauses are enforceable only where and to the extent that the intention to be relieved was made clear and unequivocal in the contract, and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable party will know what he is contracting away.

As in Sunny Isles, the contract here contains two ambiguous provisions and this ambiguity precludes judgment on the pleadings. Paragraph 3.4 absolves the Stadium of liability except for "intentional misconduct" while paragraph 1.1 states that the agreement does not confer any greater or lesser rights and privileges on Covert than those held by other ticket holders. Covert offered...