or were not in existence at the moment of the “effective date” of the Mutual Release Agreement, i.e., when the cause of action for negligence accrued, is needed so the circuit court could properly determine whether the claim for damages was precluded by the language of the Mutual Release Agreement. “[A] cause further proceedings on all issues. We fully expect that other motions for summary judgment will likely be filed in the future, after further development of the facts of this case. At that time, the circuit court may be required to resolve as a matter of law whether the mutual release is a general release or if it is ambiguous as to the extent of its scope. We leave those questions to another day. See, e.g., Rosenberg v. Cape Coral Plumbing, Inc., 920 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>); Hold v. Manzini, 736 So.2d 138, 141 (Fla. 3d
holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding summary judgment was not warranted because material facts were in dispute holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that summary judgment was precluded because contract clause limiting liability was unclear holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment