Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 5, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 25-2325 Lower Tribunal No. 20-27588-CA-01 ________________ Modern Pharmacy, LLC, Appellant, vs. J&J 111 Associates, Inc., Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. ROSENBAUM INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM, P.A., and Michael Rosenbaum; Jeffery P. Shapiro, P.A., and Jeffery P. Shapiro, for appellant. EGOZI & BENNETT, P.A., and Bernard L. Egozi and Branden J. Stillman, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See All-Dixie Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Moffatt, 212 So. 2d 347, 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (It is a “well-established rule that where the parties to a contract have selected the language contained therein, and where that language is clear and unambiguous, the courts are without authority to rewrite the terms of the agreement to give them a meaning other than the one expressed.”); accord Antoniazzi v. Wardak, 259 So. 3d 206, 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“If a contract is clear, complete and unambiguous, there is no need for judicial construction.”); see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”); Star Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc., 346 So. 3d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986)) (“An issue of fact is ‘genuine’ . . . when a reasonable jury could potentially return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party . . . [and] ‘material’ when it may affect the outcome of the case under the applicable substantive law.”); see Pan Am. W., Ltd. v. Cardinal Com. Dev., LLC, 50 So. 3d 68, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Where a contractual provision is unambiguous, no issue of fact is presented as to the meaning of the language or the parties’ intent, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”); accord Dirico v. Redland Ests., Inc., 154 2 So. 3d 355, 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Absent ambiguity, there were no genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment here.”). 3