The Warwick Corporation v. Turetsky, Case No. 4D16-256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
A trial court may consider extrinsic evidence to resolve an issue of fact when determining the ambiguity of a contract.  Specifically, a trial court can review the contents of an outside document that has been sufficiently authenticated and incorporated by reference into the contract.  The Warwick Court also held that an insurance policy is illusory where it includes internal contradiction that completely negates the coverage it expresses to provide.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Chan, Case No. 5D16-3492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
In a foreclosure litigation, the original lender/Plaintiff amended its Complaint and substituted the assignee of the note and mortgage as the Party-Plaintiff.  At trial, the court found that the substituted Party-Plaintiff failed to establish standing at the time the suit was filed.  The Fifth District held that a substitute plaintiff stands in the shoes of the original plaintiff for the purposes of establishing standing absent any evidence or testimony to the contrary.

Saunders v.  St. Cloud 192 Pet Doc Hospital, LLC, Case No. 5D17-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
Where an agreement to arbitrate includes the phrase ‘arising out of or relating to’ the contract, such language – although broad – does not include claims that the parties did not contemplate the existence and arbitration of or claims arising out of the performance of the contract itself.  The Saunders court further noted that although an employment agreement creates a legal relationship between an employer and employer, not all employment claims relate directly to the employment agreement itself.

Platinum Luxury Auctions, LLC v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, Case No. 3D16-1958 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Rival auction companies entered into a settlement agreement which included a non-disparagement provision which provided that the Defendant agrees not to make any defamatory, disparaging, or critical statements, written or verbal, about Plaintiff after execution of the settlement agreement.  In a dispute related to an alleged breach of the non-disparagement provision of a settlement agreement, the Third District held that the settlement agreement did not require the removal of existing disparaging remarks and because the disparaging remark at issue was not a statement made after the date of execution of the settlement agreement there was no breach of the non-disparagement provision of the settlement agreement.