Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 6, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D19-1312 Lower Tribunal No. 17-24954 ________________ Ritha Jean-Louis, Appellant, vs. Praetorian Insurance Company, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alexander Bokor, Judge. Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), for appellant. Garrison, Yount, Forte & Mulcahy, L.L.C., and George M. Duncan, Joseph W. Gelli, and Robert T. Vorhoff (Tampa), for appellee. Before LOGUE, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, 212 So. 3d 973, 975-76 (Fla. 2017) (quoting Washington Nat’l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943, 948 (Fla. 2013)) (“Where the language in an insurance contract is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning so as to give effect to the policy as written.”); Ebanks v. Ebanks, 198 So. 3d 712, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Gibney v. Pillifant, 32 So. 3d 784, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)) (“[T]he actual language used in the contract is the best evidence of the intent of the parties, and the plain meaning of that language controls.”); Dingle v. Dellinger, 134 So. 3d 484, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (A person is an intended third- party beneficiary to a contract “if the parties to the contract clearly express, or the contract itself expresses, an intent to primarily and directly benefit the third party or a class of persons to which that party claims to belong.”). 2