whose benefit and guidance TAIC “intended” to supply information. Moreover, it cannot be said that the issuance of an errors and omissions policy to WAG was intended to influence FLA’s decision about whether to begin a business relationship with WAG. Although FLA may have assumed that, by virtue of TAIC’s issuance of the policy, WAG was licensed to market health insurance in Florida, the plain language of the policy never makes such a representation. Thus, as TAIC correctly asserts, while FLA had a right to make a claim (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (finding that expert’s affidavit regarding defendant’s duty was conclusion of law which did not create issue of fact precluding summary judgment). See also Fla. Dep’t of Fin. Servs. v. Assoc. Indus. Ins. Co., 868 So.2d 600, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); Hurricane Boats, Inc. v. Certified Indus.
holding that appellate deadlines are not extended by request for findings of fact and conclusions of law following summary judgment because they have no place in a summary judgment proceeding holding that affidavit in support of summary judgment may not be based upon factual conclusion or conclusions of law recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law holding that summary judgment may be reversed when it is based on an error of law holding that a court may not consider hearsay contained in an affidavit when ruling on a summary judgment motion