Hinely v. FLORIDA MOTORCYCLE TRAINING, INC.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6757
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hinely appealed a final summary judgment favoring FMT, which relied on an exculpatory provision in Hinely's registration for FMT's motorcycle training course.
- Hinely signed the registration on FMT's website; the exculpatory clause appeared under the heading 'Waiver of Release of Liability' and included multiple risk and waiver provisions.
- The first paragraph acknowledged risks and assumed all risks, including injuries potentially caused by FMT's negligence; the second paragraph released FMT from claims for bodily injury, property damage, or wrongful death.
- A capitalized, bold final paragraph stated the signer intended to exempt FMT from liability for negligence or other causes of action.
- Hinely was injured in a subsequent motorcycle class; she sued alleging several negligence theories, and FMT asserted the exculpatory clause barred liability; the trial court granted summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exculpatory clause is clear and unequivocal | Hinely argues ambiguity due to heading typo and unclear language | FMT contends the overall language shows intent to relieve liability | Clause clear and unequivocal; enforceable |
| Whether the clause is void as against public policy | Hinely claims the clause violates public policy under factors from Goeden | FMT contends public policy not violated given facts | Not void; exculpatory clause not contrary to public policy |
| Whether heading or caption controls contract interpretation | Hinely asserts heading misleads and affects interpretation | FMT argues interpretation must follow the entire contract, not headings | Entire contract governs; headings do not dictate meaning |
Key Cases Cited
- Southworth & McGill, P.A. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 580 So.2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (exculpatory clauses must be clear and understandable)
- Tatman v. Space Coast Kennel Club, Inc., 27 So.3d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (ambiguous terms create uncertainty in contract interpretation)
- Hand v. Grow Constr. Inc., 983 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (plain meaning governs contract interpretation)
- Goeden v. CM III, Inc., 756 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (adhesion-type exculpation not valid where essential public service is at issue)
- City Nat'l Bank v. Citibank, N.A., 373 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (contract terms and headings; overall contract controls)
- Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., 586 F.3d 980 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (contract interpretation must consider the entire document (federal perspective))
- Cox v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 732 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (summary judgment when contract interpretation is dispositive is de novo on appeal)
- AMEC Civil, LLC. v. State Dept. of Transp., 41 So.3d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (contract interpretation as a matter of law on appeal)