Travelers Indem. Co. of Illinois v. Hutson, 1D02-3804.

• Decision Date: 19 June 2003
• Docket Number: No. 1D02-3804.,1D02-3804.
• Citation: 847 So.2d 1113
• Parties: TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF ILLINOIS, etc., Appellant, v. Carol HUTSON and Jerry Hutson, etc., et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

847 So.2d 1113

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF ILLINOIS, etc., Appellant, v. Carol HUTSON and Jerry Hutson, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 1D02-3804.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 19, 2003.

Dennis P. Dore and Charles G. Eichhorn, Jr., of Dore, Lanier, Noey & Fannin, Chartered, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Robert E. O'Quinn, Jr., and Harold A. DePalma of Webb & O'Quinn, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee Jacksonville Port Authority.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Travelers Indemnity Co., seeks review of a summary final judgment entered against it and in favor of appellee Jacksonville Port Authority on a contractual indemnity claim. Absent an ambiguity, interpretation of a contract is a question of law to be decided by the court. E.g., Gainesville-Alachua County Reg'l Airport Auth. v. R. Hyden Constr., Inc., 766 So.2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Whether an ambiguity exists in a contract is also a question of law. E.g., Centennial Mortgage, Inc. v. SG/SC, Ltd., 772 So.2d 564, 565-66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The trial court correctly concluded that the provisions of the contract between the Port Authority and Travelers' insured are not ambiguous; and that they require Travelers' insured to indemnify the Port Authority for any claim "in any way resulting from or arising out of, directly or indirectly," the "operations" of, or "use or occupancy of any portion of Jacksonville International Airport" by, the insured or its "officers, [s]uboperators, employees, representatives, suppliers, invitees, customers, guests, patrons, contractors, and agents," unless the claim resulted solely from the "negligence of officers, agents or employees of the [Port] Authority." The trial court also correctly concluded that no genuine issue regarding any material fact existed as to whether the claim "in any way result[ed] from or aros[e] out of the "operations" of, or "use or occupancy of any portion of Jacksonville International Airport" by, Travelers' insured or a "[s]uboperator[ ]" of the insured. However, because our review of the record establishes that Travelers correctly contends that disputed issues of material fact do exist as to whether the claim resulted solely from the "negligence of officers, agents or employees of the [Port] Authority," we are constrained to reverse, and remand for further proceedings. See, e.g., Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985) ("[i]f the evidence raises any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, if it will...