ORDER

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant, Indemnity Insurance Corporation RRG's ("Indemnity['s]") Motion for Summary Judgment . . . ("Motion") [ECF No. 132], filed June 1, 2012. The Court has carefully considered the parties' written submissions,1 the record, and the applicable law.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Ocean's 11 Bar & Grill, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Ocean's"), is a restaurant and bar located in Hallandale, Florida that has a twenty-four-hour liquor license issued by the State of Florida. (See Mot.2 ¶¶ 9, 10). In November 2008, Plaintiff submitted an application for insurance to Indemnity, which sells insurance products to businesses in the hospitality and entertainment industries. (See id. ¶¶ 1, 13). Indemnity did not issue insurance coverage to Plaintiff at that time. (See id. ¶ 12).

In 2009, Plaintiff submitted another application for insurance to Indemnity, which was accepted. (See id. ¶ 18). Indemnity issued Plaintiff a general liability insurance policy, no. 6000115, which provided coverage from February 11, 2009 through February 11, 2010. (See id.). In subsequent years, Plaintiff submitted applications to Indemnity and successfully renewed its insurance coverage. (See id. ¶¶ 19, 21, 24, 26). All considered, Indemnity issued Plaintiff general liability insurance coverage from February 11, 2009 through February 11, 2012. (See id. ¶¶ 18, 21 (policy no. 6000890, covering from February 11, 2010 through February 11, 2011), ¶ 26 (policy no. 6001760, covering from February 11, 2011 through February 11, 2012)).

Several portions of the 2008 through 2011 applications are identical. (See id. ¶¶ 15, 19, 24). One such portion is Question #21 (see, e.g., 2008 Nightclub Application, Ex. 4, at 613 [ECF No. 132-1]), which asks: "Does the applicant allow persons other than employees trained in their Formal Alcohol Awareness training program to serve alcohol to patrons? (i.e. Guest Bartenders, etc) 2610 Yes 2610 No — If yes, please explain[.]" (Id.). Another such portion is a signed statement4 warranting that the truth of the information supplied by the applicant is "to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, [and] based on reasonable inquiry," and acknowledging that "[i]f any . . . statements are materially misrepresented or material information has been omitted intentionally or accidentally, such misrepresentation or omission will void any issued coverages . . . ." (Id. 63).

In each of its applications, Plaintiff responded to Question #21 by checking the "no" box. (See Mot. ¶¶ 12, 16, 19, 24). And except for the 2008 application, which was unsigned (see Nightclub Application, Ex. 4, at 63), David Reiter (Plaintiff's insurance agent) signed the name, "Joseph Franco" (owner of Ocean's), beneath each application's warranty statement. (See Mot. ¶¶ 15, 20, 25; Resp. ¶ 1; Franco Depo., Ex. 2, at 16:24-25, 17:1-7 [ECF No. 132-1]).

Neither Franco nor Reiter interpreted Question #21 to ask whether Ocean's used an independent vendor to provide alcohol training. (See Resp. ¶ 4). Specifically, Reiter thought the question was "directed to the internal training of Ocean's" (id. ¶ 1 (footnote omitted)), and that "using new-hire orientation and ongoing meetings [to supervise and train persons who served alcohol at Ocean's] complied with Question 21." (Reiter Depo., Ex. 3, 174:17-20 [ECF No. 132-1]; see id. 174:21-25; see also Resp. ¶ 3 (noting that instead of using an independent vendor to conduct any alcohol awareness training of its employees, Plaintiff offered "extensive" training "by a bartender with over twenty years of experience for several days, which is buffeted by monthly meetings")).

According to Indemnity, however, "Formal Alcohol Awareness training is a term of art that is universally understood within the insurance industry to mean [a] controlled educational course provided by a licensed instructor for responsible alcohol service." (Mot. ¶ 4). Examples of these courses include TIPS ("Training for Intervention Procedures"), TAM ("Techniques of Alcohol Management"), and ServSafe. (See id. ¶ 5). Whether an educational course such as TIPS, TAM, or ServSafe is used by an applicant directly influences Indemnity's decision to insure that applicant.5 (See id. ¶ 6). Thus, Indemnity includes Question #21 in its applications for insurance coverage, which asks whether persons other than employees trained in the applicant's Formal Alcohol Awareness training program are allowed to serve alcohol to patrons. (See id.; see also 2008 Nightclub Application, Ex. 4, at 61). Plaintiff did not use a course such as TIPS, TAM, or ServSafe to train its employees until after April 30, 2011. (See Mot. ¶ 35; Resp. ¶ 3).

On April 30, 2011, an incident occurred at Ocean's prompting Indemnity to conduct an investigation of the surrounding circumstances. (See Mot. ¶ 29). As a part of its investigation, Indemnity asked Juan Marquez ("Marquez"), Plaintiff's shift manager, "Do any of the bartenders have alcohol awareness training?" (May 9, 2011 E-mail between Marquez & Indemnity, Ex. 15, at 63 [ECF No. 132-4]; Mot. ¶ 29). Marquez responded, "No." (Id. at 67; see Mot. ¶ 29). Marquez admits he does not know what is meant by the term "formal alcohol awareness training." (Marquez Depo., Ex. 4, at 17:3-5 [ECF No. 147-1]).6

On May 25, 2011, Indemnity issued a Notice of Rescission of Insurance Contracts . . . ("Rescission Notice"), which declared void ab initio each general liability insurance policy previously issued to Plaintiff. (See Ex. 16, at 69-71 [ECF No. 132-4]). Indemnity arrived at its decision, in part, because Plaintiff "withheld or misrepresented information concerning bartender and alcohol service operations." (Id. 70 (footnote omitted)).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a), (c). "[T]he court must view all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment." Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995)). "An issue of fact is material if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case." Burgos v. Chertoff, 274 F. App'x 839, 841 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Allen v. Tyson Foods Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)). "A factual dispute is genuine `if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Channa Imps., Inc. v. Hybur, Ltd., No. 07-21516-CIV, 2008 WL 2914977, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jul. 25, 2008) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).

The movant's initial burden on a motion for summary judgment "consists of a responsibility to inform the court of the basis for its motion and to identify those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and alterations in original omitted) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).

III. ANALYSIS

The parties do not dispute the essential facts of the case. These include: (1) that Plaintiff did not use a controlled educational course provided by a licensed instructor for responsible alcohol service, such as TIPS, TAM, or ServSafe at any time prior to the submission of any of its applications for insurance; (2) Plaintiff provided its own alcohol awareness training to its employees in the form of new-hire orientation and ongoing meetings; and (3) Indemnity relied on the information provided by Plaintiff in Question #21 to assess the risk of insuring Ocean's.

Indemnity asserts that pursuant to both Florida law and the terms of Plaintiff's insurance applications, it appropriately rescinded its policies on the basis of a misstatement or omission in those applications. (See Mot. 14 (citing FLA. STAT. § 627.4097); id. 20 (citing to the terms of the applications' "warrant" section, which state that "[i]f any particulars or statements are materially misrepresented . . ., such misrepresentation or omission will void any issued coverages . . .")). Indemnity identifies Plaintiff's response to Question #21 — checking the "no" box — as the material representation justifying Indemnity's rescission. Specifically, according to Indemnity's interpretation of Question #21, it inquired whether Plaintiff's alcohol servers had undergone a "controlled educational course provided by a licensed instructor for responsible alcohol service," such as TIPS, TAM, or ServSafe. (Mot. ¶ 4; see id. ¶ 5). Indemnity concludes, therefore, that as Plaintiff admits it did not use such a course prior to filling out any of the applications submitted to Indemnity, its response of "no" to Question #21 was a material misrepresentation.

Plaintiff maintains, however, that its answer to Question #21 was not a material misrepresentation.8 Rather, Plaintiff interpreted the question to refer to its own training that it offered to its employees, and answered accordingly.9

The issue that remains, therefore, is whether Question #21 is susceptible to differing interpretations; i.e., whether it is ambiguous. Indeed, "[a]n insurer may not deny coverage under [Florida Statute section 627.409] . . . if the alleged misrepresentation was in response to an ambiguous question." Mercury Ins. Co. v. Markham, 36 So.3d 730, 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Boca Raton Cmty. Hosp., Inc. v. Brucker, 695 So.2d 911, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Comprehensive Benefit Adm'rs, Inc. v. Nu-Cape Constr., Inc., 549 So.2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)).

"A question is ambiguous when it is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, one in which a negative response would be correct and one in which an affirmative response would be correct." Mercury Ins. Co., 36 So. 3d at 733 (citing Comprehensive Benefit, 549 So. 2d at 700; Great Oaks Cas. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 530 So.2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). "Ambiguities in an application for insurance are construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer who prepared the policy." Graham v. Lloyd's Underwriters at London, 964 So.2d 269, 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swindal, 622 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 1993)); see also Gaskins v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Fla., 397 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) ("Any ambiguity in the application is to be resolved against the insurer." (citing Home Ins. Co. v. Drescher, 210 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968)); Mercury Ins. Co., 36 So. 3d at 733 (citing Gaskins, 397 So. 2d at 731; Comprehensive Benefit, 549 So. 2d at 700).

Again, Question #21 asks: "Does the applicant allow persons other than employees trained in their Formal Alcohol Awareness training program to serve alcohol to patrons? (i.e. Guest Bartenders, etc) 2610 Yes 2610 No — If yes, please explain[.]" (2008 Nightclub Application, Ex. 4, at 61). Indemnity insists that the question can only be interpreted in one way, which is whether the applicant for insurance allows persons to serve alcohol other than employees who were trained in a controlled educational course provided by a licensed instructor for responsible alcohol service, such as TIPS, TAM, or ServSafe. Because an educational course provided by a licensed instructor for responsible alcohol service is a type of "Formal Alcohol Awareness training program," Indemnity's interpretation of the question is certainly reasonable. Plaintiff does not suggest otherwise.

Whether Question #21 is susceptible to an alternate, reasonable interpretation rests on whether an "objectively reasonable [applicant] in [Plaintiff's] situation . . . could truthfully answer the question in either the affirmative or the negative." Mercury Ins. Co., 36 So. 3d at 733 (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Deni Assocs. of Fla., Inc., 678 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). In Mercury Insurance, the court found that the trial court had erred in determining that a question on a car insurance application that used the word "modified" was ambiguous. See id. at 734. There, the insured had installed larger, wider tires and a lift-kit on a truck, yet answered "no" to the question: "Is any vehicle . . . modified . . . ?" Id. at 731. The insured testified that he thought "`modified' referred to engines and related parts," whereas the insurance company argued the question was unambiguous and that "the only reasonable interpretation of the word `modified' is that it means any change to the vehicle." Id. at 732 (emphasis in original). In determining that the question was not ambiguous, the court examined whether an objectively reasonable person who had installed larger tires and a lift-kit on his truck, i.e., in the insured's situation, could truthfully answer the question as the insured had. See id. at 733.

Applying this standard here, the Court first turns to what "Plaintiff's situation" is. Indemnity suggests Plaintiff's situation is that of a restaurant and bar in need of general liability insurance, that had previously submitted applications for insurance to other companies and answered the questions as Plaintiff did.10 Another fact defining Plaintiff's situation is that it never used a course such as TIPS, TAM, or ServSafe, but rather offered its own alcohol awareness training program. Thus, the relevant question before the Court is whether an objectively reasonable applicant in such a position could truthfully answer "no" to Question #21. For the following reasons, the Court answers this question affirmatively.

First, Indemnity argues that an applicant in Plaintiff's situation knew or should have known the meaning of "Formal Alcohol Awareness Program." Specifically, Indemnity contends that although the parties dispute Reiter's and Plaintiff's knowledge of the meaning of "Formal Alcohol Awareness Program," applications for insurance submitted by Plaintiff to other insurance companies demonstrate otherwise. (Compare Mot. ¶ 4 ("Formal Alcohol Awareness training is a term of art that is universally understood within the insurance industry to mean [a] controlled educational course provided by a licensed instructor for responsible alcohol service."), with Resp. ¶ 4 ("Neither Franco nor his insurance agent, David Reiter, interpreted question 21 to be asking whether Ocean's used an independent vendor to provide alcohol training." (footnotes and emphasis omitted)); see Mot. 18; ¶¶ 14 n.3, 23 n.4). For example, in a 2008 application for insurance that Plaintiff submitted to Sierra Underwriters, Plaintiff was asked: "Are Employees Given Liquor Training Yes____ No____ If "Yes", Explain Type and When Trained[.]" (Ex. 6, at 81 [ECF No. 132-1]). In a 2010 application that was not submitted to Indemnity, Plaintiff was asked: "Are all alcohol serving employees certified in a formal alcohol training course? 2610 Yes 2610 No If yes, provide name of course (e.g., TIPS, TAM, RAMP, BEST, etc.)[.]" (Ex. 12, at 64 [ECF No. 132-3]). Plaintiff affirmatively answered both of these questions and added "TIPS" in response to the follow-up inquiries.

Thus, based on the present record and for the purposes of the Court's inquiry here, an objectively reasonable applicant in Plaintiff's situation would not necessarily know that the term "their Formal Alcohol Awareness training program" refers to a course such as TIPS, TAM, or ServSafe. The Court next turns to determine whether, given Question #21's plain meaning, an objectively reasonable applicant in Plaintiff's situation could truthfully answer the question as Plaintiff did.

First, the question refers to "their Formal Alcohol Awareness training program," meaning, the applicant's Formal Alcohol Awareness training program. This can reasonably be interpreted to mean a training program offered by the applicant — Plaintiff — itself, as opposed to a course provided by an independent licensed instructor. Second, the parenthetical explanation of "Guest Bartenders, etc[,]" underscores the question's focus on the applicant's alcohol awareness training program, as opposed to, for example, TIPS training that is completed elsewhere by guest bartenders. Third, although the words "formal," "alcohol," and "awareness" are capitalized, possibly indicating that "Formal Alcohol Awareness" is a term of art, the insurance application fails to define it although it could easily have done so, and therefore "[t]he terms in an insurance policy must be `given their everyday meaning and read in light of the skill and experience of ordinary people.'" Watson v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 696 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citations omitted)); see id. at 394, 396 n.3 That the adjective "formal" precedes the words "alcohol awareness training program" does not necessarily denote an established educational course such as TIPS. Rather, it could reasonably encompass an applicant's regular training program or regimen, as opposed to ad hoc or on-the-job training, based on the plain meaning of "formal." See AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 535 (3d ed. 1997) (stating a definition of "formal" includes "[e]xecuted, carried out, or done in proper or regular form"); see also Watson, 696 So. 2d at 396 ("`In construing terms appearing in insurance policies, Florida courts commonly adopt the plain meaning of words contained in legal and non-legal dictionaries.'" (quoting Brill v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 1511, 1513 (11th Cir. 1986))). According to this plain reading of the question, the Court concludes that an objectively reasonable applicant in Plaintiff's position could truthfully answer "no," as Plaintiff did, to Question #21 based on the formal alcohol awareness training program it offers to its employees.

Based on the differing reasonable interpretations of Question #21 and the issues of fact surrounding Plaintiff's knowledge, summary judgment is denied. See Graham, 964 So. 2d at 274-75 ("Where the terms of a contract are disputed and reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, an issue of fact is presented which cannot properly be resolved by summary judgment." (citing Chhabra v. Morales, 906 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Strama v. Union Fid. Life Ins. Co., 793 So.2d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001))).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [ECF No. 132] is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.