PERSHING INDUSTRIES, INC. v. STONEMOR FLORIDA SUBSIDIARY, LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 21-2367
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 22, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

No. 3D21-2367 Lower Tribunal No. 20-6945 ________________

Pershing Industries, Inc., Appellant,

vs.

StoneMor Florida Subsidiary, LLC, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.

Robert H. Yaffe, P.A., and Robert H. Yaffe; Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Douglas M. Kramer; Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Daniel Nordby (Tallahassee), for appellant.

Duane Morris LLP, and Kevin E. Vance (Boca Raton); Duane Morris LLP, and Richard D. Shane, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Having carefully reviewed the language of the contract at issue under

traditional rules of interpretation, Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 174 So. 3d 983, 986 (Fla. 2015) (“Where a contract is clear and unambiguous, it must

be enforced pursuant to its plain language.”); Kel Homes, LLC v. Burris, 933

So. 2d 699, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[T]he use of different terms in

paragraphs 24 and 28 tends to indicate that a different meaning was

intended. As a general proposition, the use of different language in different

contractual provisions strongly implies that a different meaning was

intended.”), we affirm the trial court’s well-reasoned order granting summary

judgment for Appellee.