properly be resolved by summary judgment.” Id. (quoting Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). Because certain provisions in the parties’ contract are disputed and are reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, an issue of fact remains in the instant case. As such, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment. See Strama, 793 So.2d at 1132 (“When ‘there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the interpretation that the parties gave the ambiguous contract provision,’ summary judgment is inappropriate.”) (quoting Hancock v. Brumer, Cohen, Logan, Kandell & Kaufman, 580 So.2d 782, 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)); see also Birwelco-Montenay, Inc. v. Infilco Degremont, Inc., 827 So.2d 255, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for
holding that rules of contract construction are to be applied where the language used is ambiguous holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law holding that where each side ascribes a different meaning to what the sides claim is the unambiguous language in a contract the contract is ambiguous and summary judgment is improper