The Fifth District concluded 2009 with an opinion finding that an exculpatory clause in a dog show's contract was not sufficiently clear and unambiguous in Marie and Charles Tatman v. Space Coast Kennel Club, Inc. et al. (Monaco, Lawson, Jacobus).

As we've discussed before, exculpatory clauses in Florida receive strict analysis and must have only one clear interpretation to be valid.

In this case, the plaintiffs were owners of a dog and signed a form contract to show the dog. It was noted in the opinion that, during dog shows, the owners often do not personally show the dogs and may not even attend. The contract, in one paragraph, noted that the owner confirmed they owned the dog and that the dog was not hazardous. In the next sentence, it said, "I agree not to hold [dog show] liable for any accident or injury."

In this case, the owner was at the show and was injured when bitten by another dog. The owner sued the dog show and, as a defense, the hosts used the contract as a defense. The appellate court ruled that the sentence was ambiguous since it was unclear whether it was referring to just the dog or to the dog and the owner. Thus, with two reasonable alternative interpretations of the exculpatory clause, it was deemed void.

Tip: broad waiver clauses should be in their own paragraph so as to avoid being limited by prior/subsequent sentences.