Who wins when an Endorsement conflicts with the Body of the Policy?
Submitted by Carri S. Leininger on 23 Jan, 2025
Insurance professionals and coverage attorneys already know the general law that governs policy interpretation. Insurance contracts are construed in accordance with the plain language of the policies as bargained for by the parties.” Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swindal, 622 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 1993). “Ambiguities are interpreted liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer who prepared the policy.” Id. (citing Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Nash, 97 So. 2d 4, 9-10 (Fla. 1957)).
A lesser-known principal of policy interpretation involves resolution of conflicts between language in the body of a policy and language in an endorsement. Spoiler Alert – the endorsement wins. “[T]o the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls.” Herrington v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 342 So. 3d 767, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (quoting Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hradecky, 208 So. 3d 184, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)).
In Colony Insurance v. Titan Restoration, 2025 WL 45160 (Fla. 4th DCA, January 8, 2025), the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the Insured and denying the carrier’s motion. Titan, the general contractor, argued the Endorsement created an ambiguity with the “Other Insurance” clause in the Policy, and therefore the ambiguity must be resolved in its favor as the insured. The appellate court disagreed holding the endorsement controls over the language contained in the body of a policy. Herrington, 342 So. 3d at 769.
The Policy’s Endorsement required Titan be named as an additional insured in the subcontractor’s policy on a “primary and noncontributory basis.” However, pursuant to the “Other Insurance” clause, Titan’s Policy is excess over the subcontractor’s policy if Titan be named as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy. Because of the conflict between the “Other Insurance” clause and the Endorsement, the Endorsement is the governing document. See Herrington, 342 So. 3d at 770. Thus, to receive coverage under the Policy, Titan was required to have been added as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy on a primary and non-contributory basis. Titan was not added to the subcontractor’s policy and did not meet the requirements for coverage under the Endorsement. The appellate court held that Colony Insurance was entitled to summary judgment.
The takeaway is that an ambiguity is not created by an inconsistency between the language in the body of the policy and the language in an endorsement. The endorsement wins.