available for each type of injury that A.N. suffered or that the coverage for A.N.’s injuries should be allocated between the two TIG policies. Alternatively, P.J. argues that the deemer clauses, which establish a “first encounter rule” for the purpose of determining under which policy a claim is covered, impose an arbitrary trigger of coverage and are therefore invalid. IV. Legal Analysis In this diversity action the Court must apply the substantive law of the forum state, Florida. See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); LaFarge Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 118 F.3d 1511, 1515 (11th Cir. 1997). In Florida, courts interpret insurance policies with a view of giving the contract full effect. Hoffman v. Robinson, 213 So.2d 267, 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, all of the provisions, words and
holding that the legal effect of a contract must be determined from words of entire contract and court may not violate the clear meaning to create ambiguity 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 legislatures intent is determined from plain and common meaning of words used holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims