STAR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY, INC., A/A/O JESUS PORTAL, 21-0064

In 2008 Jesus Portal was injured in an auto accident; two medical providers (Finlay Diagnostic Center for x-rays and Asclepius Medical for physical therapy) obtained assignments of his no-fault benefits and later assigned those rights to Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc.
In 2011 Gables sued Star Casualty in two separate breach-of-contract actions: one for x-ray charges ("X‑Ray litigation") and one for physical therapy ("PT litigation").
In 2016 Star confessed judgment in the PT litigation and the parties entered a settlement agreement resolving that case.
In 2019 Star moved to enforce the 2017 settlement, arguing it covered "all claims arising out of Portal’s motor vehicle accident," including the X‑Ray litigation; Gables countered the settlement addressed only attorney’s fees and costs in the PT case and there was no meeting of the minds to resolve the X‑Ray suit.
The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing, denied Star’s motion to enforce without taking evidence, and Star stipulated to a final judgment while reserving this appeal.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the settlement language presented a latent ambiguity that required an evidentiary hearing and consideration of parol evidence to determine the parties’ intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PT settlement encompassed the X‑Ray litigation	Settlement was limited to PT attorney’s fees/costs; did not resolve X‑Ray claims	Settlement unambiguously resolved "all claims arising out of Portal’s motor vehicle accident," including X‑Ray case	Agreement contained a latent ambiguity; remand for evidentiary hearing to determine intent
Whether parol evidence may be considered to interpret the settlement	No meeting of minds; if ambiguous, extrinsic evidence is permissible to clarify intent	Parol evidence barred; court should enforce the written terms as unambiguous without hearing	Parol evidence is admissible to explain a latent ambiguity; trial court erred by refusing an evidentiary hearing
Standard of review for contract ambiguity	Ambiguity determination contested	Same	Ambiguity is reviewed de novo; where ambiguity exists factual resolution is required via hearing

Commercial Cap. Res., LLC v. Giovannetti, 955 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (where agreement wording is ambiguous, interpretation raises factual questions and requires evidentiary hearing)
Brickell Fin. Servs. – Motor Club, Inc. v. Road Transp., LLC, 298 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (same rule: ambiguity precludes summary disposition and mandates evidentiary hearing)
Nationstar Mortg. Co. v. Levine, 216 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (extrinsic evidence admissible to explain a latent ambiguity)
Riera v. Riera, 86 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (defines latent ambiguity as clear language rendered ambiguous by extrinsic facts)
Marin v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (contract ambiguity questions are reviewed de novo)