Pino v. Hudson Excess Insurance Company — affirmed judgment based on the insurance policy’s plain language

Case
Cecilia S. Pino, et al. v. Hudson Excess Insurance Company, et al.
Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Judge
SCALES (Rick Scott, 2013); LINDSEY (Rick Scott, 2017)
Date Decided
July 30, 2026
Docket No.
3D25-0065
Topics
Insurance Coverage; Policy Interpretation; Judgment on the Pleadings
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Cecilia S. Pino and the other appellants appealed from a ruling of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in litigation involving Hudson Excess Insurance Company and other appellees. The appeal concerned a judgment on the pleadings and the interpretation of insurance-policy language.

The Third District’s brief per curiam opinion does not describe the underlying loss, the policy provisions, or the circuit court’s reasoning. Its cited authorities address the standard for judgment on the pleadings, enforcement of plain and unambiguous insurance language, and the distinction between policy terms such as “an insured,” “the insured,” and “any.”

The Court’s Holding

The Third District affirmed the circuit court’s judgment without further factual analysis. It cited the rule that judgment on the pleadings is proper only when the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court also cited authority requiring insurance policies to be read as a whole and unambiguous language to be enforced according to its plain meaning. Its citations further recognize that “an insured” can mean any insured, rather than one specific insured, and that “any” may encompass every insured without restriction or exception.

Key Takeaways

  • The Third District affirmed the judgment on the pleadings.
  • Plain and unambiguous insurance-policy language must be applied as written and in the context of the policy as a whole.
  • The choice between “an insured,” “the insured,” and “any” can materially affect the scope of coverage or an exclusion.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that coverage disputes may be resolved on the pleadings when the policy language is unambiguous and establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It also underscores the importance of articles and other broadly worded terms in provisions applying to insured persons.

Because the opinion provides no factual discussion and only a citation-based affirmance, its significance is principally confirmatory rather than an expansion of Florida insurance law.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top