is presented which should be submitted to the jury. First Nat’l Bank of Lake Park
v. Gay, 694 So.2d 784, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.
De Londono, 511 So.2d 604, 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “The initial determination
of whether the contract term is ambiguous is a question of law for the court, and, if
the facts of the case are not in dispute, the court will also be able to resolve the
ambiguity as a matter of law.” Strama, 793 So.2d at 1132; Ellenwood v. Southern
United Life Ins. Co., 373 So.2d 392, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
2. In Florida, an objective test is used to determine the agreement of the
parties. Fivecoat v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 928 So.2d 402, 403 (Fla. 1st DCA
2006). The agreement of the parties “is ascertained from the language used in the
instrument and the objects to be accomplished ….” Rylander v. Sears Roebuck &
Co., 302 So.2d 478, 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Jones v. Treasure, 984 So.2d 634,
638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). When determining the agreement of the parties, a court
need not consider whether or not the parties reached a subjective meeting of the
minds as to the terms of a contract. Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384, 1385
(Fla. 1985). “The making of a contract depends not on the agreement of two minds
in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs – not on the
parties having meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing.” Id.
(quoting Gendzier v. Bielecki, 97 So.2d 604, 608 (Fla. 1957)). Accordingly, the
plain meaning of the language used by the parties controls as the best indication of
the parties’ agreement. SPP Real Estate (Grand Bay), Inc. v. Joseph J. Portuondo,
P.A., 756 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Thus, the terms in a contract should
be interpreted in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning. Kel Homes,
LLC v. Burris, 933 So.2d 699, 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
3. The norms of contractual interpretation may vary in certain areas of
the law. For example, although the existence of an ambiguous contractual term
typically creates an issue of fact as to the intent of the parties which should be
resolved by the jury, this principle of law is not applicable to contracts between
contractors and subcontractors with regard to risk-shifting provisions. Dec
Electric, Inc. v. Raphael Constr. Corp., 558 So.2d 427, 428-29 (Fla. 1990). In
such instances, the intention of the parties may be determined from the written
contract as a matter of law because the nature of the transaction makes it
appropriate for a court to resolve the apparent ambiguity. Id. “The reason is that
the relationship between the parties is a common one and usually their intent will
not differ from transaction to transaction, although it may be differently
expressed.” Id. at 429. The norms of contractual interpretation also do not apply to
insurance contracts, as ambiguities are always to be construed against the insurer
and in favor of coverage.