Penzer v. Transportation Insurance Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida answered in the affirmative a certified question concerning whether a commercial liability policy covering advertising injury includes coverage for damages arising from unsolicited fax advertisements sent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court held that policy language covering the oral or written publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy encompasses TCPA violations involving the privacy interest in seclusion. Separate opinions agreed with the result but concluded that the policy language was ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured.

Holdings

1. Under Florida law, a commercial liability policy covering an oral or written publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy provides coverage for sending unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA, even when no private information is revealed in the facsimile.
2. The doctrine of the last antecedent does not require the phrase that violates a person's right of privacy to modify only material or to limit coverage to privacy violations arising from the content of the fax.
3. Insurance policies are construed according to their plain meaning; an actually ambiguous coverage provision is construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a commercial liability policy covering advertising injury arising from the oral or written publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy covers damages for sending unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA when the facsimile reveals no private information.
2. Whether the doctrine of the last antecedent limits the policy language to privacy violations caused by the content of published material.

Disposition

other