author: POLSTON, J.

text:
    FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, et al., Respondents. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, Petitioner, v. Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., Respondent. Mike Kocher, et al., Petitioners, v. Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., Respondent.
    Nos. SC08-1317, SC08-1318, SC08-1319.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Jan. 14, 2010.
    Rehearing Denied March 1, 2010.

      Wilbur E. Brewton, Kelly B. Plante, and Tana D. Storey of Brewton Plante, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, and Dino G. Galardi of The Ferraro Law Firm, Miami, FL, for Petitioners.
    David S. Nelson, Tampa, FL; Marie A. Borland and C. Howard Hunter of Hill, Ward and Henderson, P.A., Tampa, FL; Steven C. Ruth and Jessica E. Shahady of Beltz and Ruth, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL; and Timothy F. Prugh of Prugh and Associates, Tampa, FL, for Respondents.
    Joel S. Perwin, Miami, FL, on behalf of Florida Justice Association; and Andrew S. Bolin, Tampa, FL, on behalf of Florida Hospital Association and Florida Defense Lawyer’s Association, As Amicus Curiae.
   POLSTON, J.

This consolidated case is before the Court for review of All Children’s Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Administrative Hearings, 989 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass’n, 982 So.2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). In both opinions the Second District Court of Appeal ruled upon the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:

IN LIGHT OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN GALEN OF FLORIDA, INC. V. BRANIFF, 696 So.2d 308 (Fla.1997), DOES A PHYSICIAN’S PREDELIV-ERY NOTICE TO HIS OR HER PATIENT OF THE PLAN AND HIS OR HER PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN SATISFY THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 766.316, FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), IF THE HOSPITAL WHERE THE DELIVERY TAKES PLACE FAILS TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF ANY KIND?

All Children’s, 989 So.2d at 4; Bayfront, 982 So.2d at 710.

We answer the certified question in the negative and quash the Second District’s decisions in both All Children’s and Bay-front. We hold that in order to satisfy the notice requirement of section 766.316, Florida Statutes (1997), both participating physicians and hospitals with participating physicians on staff must provide obstetrical patients with notice of then- participation in the plan.

I. BACKGROUND

The Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (“NICA” or “the plan”) was established by the Florida Legislature in 1988 as a means to alleviate the high costs of medical malpractice insurance for physicians practicing obstetrics. § 766.301, Fla. Stat. (1997). The legislature found that obstetricians were among the most severely affected by the current malpractice problems and that the costs of birth-related neurological injury claims were extremely high. Id. Consequently, the legislature created the NICA fund to provide compensation, on a no-fault basis, for birth-related neurological injuries. Id. Because NICA remedies are limited, obstetric patients subject to limited compensation under NICA are entitled to receive pre-delivery notice of their rights and limitations under the plan. § 766.316, Fla. Stat. (1997); Galen, 696 So.2d at 309. Additionally, in order to claim immunity from civil suits under NICA, health care providers must provide pre-delivery notice to those patients. See Galen, 696 So.2d at 311; Bd. of Regents v. Athey, 694 So.2d 46, 49-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In particular, the notice provision provides:

Each hospital with a participating physician on its staff and each participating physician, other than residents, assistant residents, and interns deemed to be participating physicians under s. 766.814(4)(c), under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan shall provide notice to the obstetrical patients thereof as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries. Such notice shall be provided on forms furnished by the association and shall include a clear and concise explanation of a patient’s rights and limitations under the plan.

§ 766.316, Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis supplied). A “participating physician” is defined as

a physician licensed in Florida to practice medicine who practices obstetrics or performs obstetrical services either full time or part time and who had paid or was exempted from payment at the time of the injury the assessment required for participation in the birth-related neurological injury compensation plan for the year in which the injury occurred.

§ 766.302(7), Fla. Stat. (1997). “ ‘Hospital’ means any hospital licensed in Florida.” § 766.302(6), Fla. Stat. (1997).

In the underlying cases, two infants, Christopher Kocher and Courtney Lynn Glenn, suffered birth-related neurological injuries in unrelated incidents.

The Kocher Case

In Christopher Kocher’s case, the delivering physician had timely provided notice of his participation in the plan, but Bay-front Medical Center (“Bayfront”), the hospital where Christopher was delivered, did not provide any notice. Bayfront Med. Cntr., Inc. v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass’n, 841 So.2d 626, 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), quashed, 955 So.2d 531 (Fla.2007). Christopher died as a result of his injuries, and Christopher’s parents (the “Koehers”) filed a medical malpractice action against Bayfront. Id. at 627-28. Bayfront moved to abate the action, claiming that the Kochers must pursue remedies under NICA. Id. at 628. The case was submitted to an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), who concluded that (1) the infant’s injuries were compensable under NICA; (2) the physician supplied the required notice but the hospital did not; (3) the failure of the hospital to provide notice precluded the application of the exclusivity and immunity provisions of the plan; and (4) the Kochers could either accept the plan benefits or pursue civil remedies. Bayfront, 982 So.2d at 705. On appeal, Bayfront argued that the purpose of the notice requirement was satisfied and that, consequently, the Kochers were limited to the remedies available through the plan, and Bayfront was immune from any civil action. Id. at 705-07. The Kochers asserted that they were not limited by NICA remedies, due to Bayfront’s failure to fulfill the notice requirement. Id. at 707. The Second District agreed with Bayfront. Relying on this Court’s decision in Galen, the Second District concluded that the notice requirement had been satisfied and that the Kochers did not have the right to reject NICA remedies and pursue a civil action. Bayfront, 982 So.2d at 709. Specifically, it concluded:

[A] physician’s predelivery notice of his participation in the Plan satisfies the statutory notice requirement as defined by the Florida Supreme Court in Galen, 696 So.2d 308. Therefore, in the instant case, the statute was satisfied by the notice provided to Mrs. Kocher by her physician. Moreover, we agree that a plain reading of the statute does not require notice from Bayfront. The statute does not mandate that both the hospital and physician must give notice; rather, the statute qualifies which hospitals must give notice. That is, the only hospitals that are statutorily required to give notice are those “with a participating physician on ... staff.” § 766.316. Although the statute does not define this term, a plain reading of this language suggests that a hospital is required to provide such notice to an obstetrical patient if that patient’s delivering physician is a Plan participant and is also an employee of the hospital, as opposed to a physician who merely enjoys staff privileges at the hospital. Nothing in the instant ALJ’s amended final order indicates that Bayfront is a hospital with a participating physician on staff or that Mrs. Kocher’s physician is an employee of Bayfront. As such, we conclude that Bayfront was not statutorily required to provide Mrs. Kocher with additional notice.

Id. at 708-09. The Second District acknowledged that its decision was based on an extension of this Court’s reasoning in Galen. Therefore, the Second District certified the question of great public importance at issue here. Id. at 709.

The Glenn Case

Like Christopher Kocher, Courtney Glenn was born at Bayfront Medical Center and suffered birth-related neurological injuries. All Children’s, 863 So.2d at 452. After her delivery, Courtney received immediate resuscitation and other neonatal care administered by nurses provided to Bayfront by All Children's Hospital (“All Children’s”). Id. at 452-53. Courtney’s parents (the “Glenns”) subsequently filed a civil suit against the delivering obstetrician personally, the professional partnership to which he belonged, and Bayfront. Id. at 453. The Glenns settled out of court with the obstetrician, his partnership, and Bay-front, and then filed a third amended complaint against All Children’s, claiming that it was negligent in its administration of post-natal care. Id. The civil action against All Children’s was abated after the trial court determined that, before the suit could proceed, the Glenns must obtain an administrative determination of whether Courtney had suffered a birth-related neurological injury that was compensable under the plan. Id. Following an administrative hearing, an ALJ issued a final written order finding that, while the treating obstetrician gave the mother timely notice of his participation in the plan, Bayfront did not. Id. The ALJ further found that Bay-front’s failure to give notice was not due to any medical emergency, which would have excused the failure. Id. Consequently, the ALJ concluded that, because Bayfront failed to give the required statutory notice of its participation in the plan, ‘“neither the hospital, the participating physician, nor any other provider (such as All Children’s Hospital) may invoke NICA exclusivity to defeat a civil claim.’ ” Id. The Second District reversed, finding that the disposition of the Glenns’ case was controlled by its previous decision in Bayfront. All Children’s, 989 So.2d at 3. Therefore, it concluded that

the notice given by the delivering physician in this case — who was not an employee of the hospital where the infant was delivered — was sufficient to meet the notice requirements of the Act. We therefore conclude that the ALJ erred in holding that Bayfront’s failure to give notice precluded All Children’s from invoking the statutory exclusive remedy provision and being shielded from tort liability.

Id. As in Bayfront, the Second District certified the question of great public importance at issue here.

II. ANALYSIS

We review the district courts’ interpretation of a statute de novo. Brass & Singer, P.A. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 944 So.2d 252, 253 (Fla.2006).

As a general rule, statutory interpretation begins with the plain meaning of the statute. GTC, Inc. v. Edgar, 967 So.2d 781, 785 (Fla.2007) (citing Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984)). As this Court has explained,

[w]hen the language of the. statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.

Holly, 450 So.2d at 219 (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McBainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931)). “If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the legislative intent must be derived from the words used without involving rules of construction or speculating as to what the legislature intended.” Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So.2d 1086, 1091 (Fla.2006) (quoting Zuckernian v. Alter, 615 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla.1993)). “[E]ven where a court is convinced that the legislature really meant and intended something not expressed in the phraseology of the [statute], it will not deem itself authorized to depart from the plain meaning of the language which is free from ambiguity.” St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamm, 414 So.2d 1071, 1073 (Fla.1982) (quoting Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792, 78 So. 693, 694 (1918)).

Here, the statute at issue provides in relevant part that “[e]ach hospital with a participating physician on its staff and each participating physician ... shall provide notice to the obstetrical patients thereof as to the limited no-fault alternative for• birth-related neurological injuries.” § 766.316, Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis supplied). We find this language clear and unambiguous. Affording the statute its plain and ordinary meaning, we find that both participating physicians and hospitals with a participating physician on staff are required to provide notice to obstetrical patients of their rights and limitations under the plan. The plain language of section 766.316 does not, in any way, suggest that when a participating physician provides notice of his participation in the plan, the notice requirement has been satisfied.

Our plain reading of the statute here is in harmony with Galen, 696 So.2d 308. The question presented in Galen concerned when notice must be given, not who must give notice. 696 So.2d at 308-09. We concluded that, logically, the patient must receive notice prior to delivery because the purpose of the notice provision is to inform the obstetrical patient that her remedies may be limited under the plan and to give her an opportunity to make an informed choice of providers. Id. at 309. Accordingly, we held that section 766.316 requires that health care providers give patients pre-delivery notice of their participation in NICA as a condition precedent to invoking NICA immunity. Id. Notably, the term “health care provider” includes a health care facility. See § 440.13(l)(i), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 766.202(4), Fla. Stat. (2009). And “health care facility” includes a hospital. See §§ 408.032(7), 440.13(l)(h), Fla. Stat. (1997). Therefore, our conclusion in Galen — that health care providers must give patients pre-delivery notice of participation in the plan — includes hospitals and does not, in any way, imply that hospitals with participating physicians on staff are excluded from fulfilling the notice requirement for the reason that the participating physician provided notice. Rather, Galen supports our holding today that the statute requires both participating physicians and hospitals with participating physicians on staff to provide obstetrical patients with notice of their rights and limitations under the plan.

In both of the underlying cases, the ALJ and the Second District interpreted NICA’s notice provision as not severable based on NICA’s exclusivity of remedies rule, which provides that if an injury is found to be compensable under NICA, then all civil remedies are precluded. See § 766.303(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). In particular, the ALJ ruled in the Kocher ease that if either the hospital or the participating physician fails to give notice, then the notice provision is not fulfilled, and the injured party can either elect to take NICA remedies or seek civil remedies against either party. See Bayfront, 982 So.2d at 707. And the Second District has held that if one party gives notice, then the notice requirement is satisfied and NICA is the only available remedy. See id. at 708; All Children’s, 989 So.2d at 3. We disagree with both the ALJ and the Second District. Instead, we hold that the notice provision is severable with regard to defendant liability. Consequently, under our holding today, if either the participating physician or the hospital with participating physicians on its staff fails to give notice, then the claimant can either (1) accept NICA remedies and forgo any civil suit against any other person or entity involved in the labor or delivery, or (2) pursue a civil suit only against the person or entity who failed to give notice and forgo any remedies under NICA.

Consistent with the plain meaning and the pimpose of the statute, our holding (i) shields from civil liability those persons or entities that gave proper and timely notice, and (ii) allows a claimant who did not receive proper and timely notice to pursue civil remedies only against the person or entity who failed to provide such notice.

The Second District alternatively concluded that Bayfront was not required to give notice because it did not have any participating physicians on staff. Bayfront, 982 So.2d at 708-09; All Children’s, 989 So.2d at 3. Specifically, the Second District ruled that the hospital is required to give notice only if the delivering physician is a plan participant and also an employee of the hospital, as opposed to a participating physician who merely has staff privileges. Bayfront, 982 So.2d at 708-09; All Children’s, 989 So.2d at 3. We disagree.

Although NICA does not define the term “staff,” section 395.002(19), Florida Statutes (1997), the chapter relating to hospital regulations and licensing, defines “medical staff’ as “physicians licensed ... with privileges in a licensed facility, as well as other licensed health care practitioners with clinical privileges as approved by a licensed facility’s governing board.” Section 395.002(6) defines “clinical privileges” as “the privileges granted to a physician or other licensed health care practitioner to render patient care services in a hospital.” Accordingly, Bayfront is not excluded from the requirement of giving notice unless Bayfront has no participating physicians with staff privileges.

As to All Children’s, it is undisputed that it was exempt from the notice requirement because All Children’s is a pediatric hospital that does not offer obstetrical services; therefore, it did not have any participating physicians on staff. Regarding All Children’s potential liability, the ALJ concluded that Bayfront’s failure to give notice was imputed to All Children’s and precluded All Children’s from invoking the statutory exclusive remedy. All Children’s, 989 So.2d at 3. The Second District concluded that the ALJ erred in holding that Bayfront’s failure to give notice prevented All Children’s from claiming immunity because the physician’s notice satisfied the purpose of the notice provision and NICA was the only available remedy. Id. The Glenns argue that All Children’s does not have NICA immunity because it is an agent of Bayfront and that, consequently, Bayfront’s failure to provide notice is imputed to All Children’s. In the alternative, the Glenns argue that All Children’s is not immune from civil suit because the injuries claimed against All Children’s did not occur during labor, delivery, or immediate post resuscitative efforts. Because the Glenn’s additional arguments for All Children’s lack of immunity have not been addressed at the Second District, we remand for consideration of these issues.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, we answer the certified question in the negative, quash the decisions of the Second District in Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass’n, 982 So.2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and All Children’s Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Administrative Hearings, 989 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and remand for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C. J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ„ concur.

CANADY, J., recused.

      . Wc have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

      . The "plan" means the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan established under section 766.303, Florida Statutes (1997). See § 766.302(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).

      . The Second District first determined that the ALJ exceeded his authority by deciding issues related to immunity and the notice requirement. See Bayfront Med. Centr., Inc. v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, 841 So.2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, this Court quashed the Second District’s decision, concluding that an ALJ does have the authority to make determinations regarding those issues. See Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings, 948 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla.2007).

      . As in Bayfront, die Second District initially determined that the AU exceeded his authority by deciding notice and immunity issues. See All Children’s, 863 So.2d at 455-57. But that decision was also quashed by this Court in Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass’n, 948 So.2d at 717.

      . Specifically, the rule states:
      The rights and remedies granted by this plan on account of a birth-related neurological injury shall exclude all other rights and ■remedies of such infant, her or his personal representative, parents, dependents, and next of kin, at common law or otherwise, against any person or entity directly involved with the labor, delivery, or immediate postdelivery resuscitation during which such injury occurs, arising out of or related to a medical malpractice claim with respect to such injury; except that a civil action shall not be foreclosed where there is clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or malicious purpose or willful and wanton disregard of human rights, safety, or property, provided that such suit is filed prior to and in lieu of payment of an award under ss. 766.301-766.316.

        § 766.303(2), Fla. Stat. (1997).

      . Applying this reasoning, if a participating physician gave the required statutory notice 1o his patient, but the hospital did not, the injured party would be limited to NICA remedies with respect to the doctor. In addition, if the injured party accepted NICA remedies, he or she would be precluded from seeking civil remedies against the hospital because once an injured parly accepts NICA remedies he or she is precluded from seeking any other remedies "against any person or entity directly involved with the labor, delivery, or immediate postdelivery resuscitation during which such injury occurs, arising out of or related to a medical malpractice claim with respect to such injury.” § 766.303(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). The claimant's other choice in this situation would be to forgo any remedy against the participating physician, thereby avoiding the exclusivity provision, and to pursue civil remedies against the hospital and any other person or entity who was required to give notice but failed to do so.

      . As discussed earlier in this opinion, neither the ALJ nor the Second District decided this issue correctly.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: POLSTON, J. PARIENTE, J., CANADY, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Michael PENZER, etc., Appellant, v. TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. SC08-2068.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Jan. 28, 2010.

      Marc A. Wites of Wites and Kapetan, P.A., Lighthouse Point, FL, Douglas S. Wilens and Stuart A. Davidson of Cough-lin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman, and Robbins, LLP, Boca Raton, FL, for Appellants.
    Raoul G. Cantero, III of White and Case, LLP, Miami, FL, Laura Besvinick and Parker D. Thomson of Hogan and Hartson, LLP, Miami, FL, and Arthur J. McColgan, II of Walker Wilcox Mastousek, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Appellee.
    R. Hugh Lumpkin and Michael F. Huber of Ver, Ploeg, and Lumpkin, P.A., Miami, FL, Eugene R. Anderson, William G. Passannante, and Jane A. Horne of Anderson, Kill, and Olick, P.C., New York, NY, on behalf of United Policyholders; and Ronald L. Kammer and Maureen G. Pearcy of Hinshaw and Culbertson, LLP, Miami, FL, Laura A. Foggan and Parker Lavin of Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association, as Amicus Curiae.
   POLSTON, J.

This case is before the Court for review of a question of Florida law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that is determinative of a cause pending in that court and for which there appears to be no controlling precedent.

The coverage issue in this insurance dispute concerns whether, under Florida law, the sending of an unsolicited advertisement by fax, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C.A. § 227 (2001), is covered by a particular insurance policy provision. The Eleventh Circuit certified the following question:

Does a commercial Liability Policy Which Provides Coverage for “Advertising Injury,” Defined as “Injury Arising out of ... Oral or Written Publication of Material That Violates a Person’s Right of Privacy,” Such as the Policy Described Here, Provide Coverage for Damages for Violation of a Law Prohibiting Using Any Telephone Facsimile Machine to Send Unsolicited Advertisement to a Telephone Facsimile Machine When No Private Information is Revealed in the Facsimile?

Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 545 F.3d 1303, 1312 (11th Cir.2008).

For the reasons that follow, we hold that, under Florida law, the language of this insurance provision provides coverage for infringements of the TCPA. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative.

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2003, Michael Penzer filed a class action suit in a Florida state court against Nextel South Corporation alleging that Nextel or one of its agents sent him an unsolicited facsimile advertisement in violation of the TCPA. Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 509 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1280 (S.D.Fla.2007). Nextel filed a third-party-complaint against Sunbelt, a blast-fax advertiser, and Southeast Wireless, an authorized agent of Nextel, seeking indemnity and contributions for any liability Nextel may have in the class action. Id. Nextel also alleged that Southeast Wireless hired Sunbelt to create the advertisement and that Nextel did not authorize the fax transmissions. Id. Penzer then filed a third-party complaint against Southeast Wireless, and Southeast Wireless requested that Transportation Insurance Company (“Transportation”), its commercial liability insm*er, defend it in the class action. Id. Transportation refused to provide a defense for the class action suit or the Nextel complaint, and also disclaimed any coverage on various grounds. Id. at 1281.

Thereafter, in April 2004, Penzer entered into a settlement agreement with Southeast Wireless in which Penzer agreed to release Southeast Wireless from any liability, and Southeast Wireless consented to a judgment and assigned its right to seek insurance coverage from Transportation to Penzer. Id. The state court approved the settlement and certified a settlement class. Id. Penzer then pursued a declaratory judgment action against Transportation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, wherein Transportation defended that, based upon the language of the policy, Transportation had no obligation to defend or indemnify Southeast Wireless. Id.

The insurance policy at issue here provides coverage for advertising injuries. The policy defines “advertising injury” as an “injury arising out of one or more of the following offenses:”

a. Oral or written publication of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services;
b. Oral or unitten publication of mate-nal that violates a person’s right of ‘Privacy;
c. Misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business; or
d. Infringement of copyright, title or slogan.

Id.

Transportation argued:

[T]he phrase “oral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy,” read as a whole and in context, provides coverage only for injuries to privacy rights caused by the content of the material. Second, Florida law interpreting the phrase “publication ... in violation of an individual’s right of privacy” makes clear that coverage exists only when private matters about one person are communicated to another person. Although Southeast’s conduct in having the commercial advertisements sent by facsimile may have violated the TCPA, there is no coverage under the policy because there were no content-based privacy violations.

Id. at 1283.

The Southern District agreed with Transportation. Specifically, it found that Transportation did “not have a duty to indemnify the plaintiffs for Southeast’s violations of the TCPA.” Id. at 1288. It ruled that the policy language was not ambiguous and that “advertising injury coverage under this provision exists only when the content of the material published violates a person’s right to privacy.” Id. at 1286. The Southern District declined to adopt the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit in Hooters of Augusta, Inc. v. American Global Insurance Co., 157 F. App’x 201 (11th Cir.2005), which reached the opposite conclusion under Georgia law, reasoning that (1) “Hooters did not address the main argument made by Transportation here,” and (2) Florida law calls for a different result. 509 F.Supp.2d at 1284. Instead, the Southern District relied on the reasoning of the Third District Court of Appeal in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Compupay, Inc., 654 So.2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a case holding that an insurer had no duty to defend its insured against a sexual harassment claim under a policy provision that provided coverage for “a publication or utterance in violation of an individual’s right of privacy.” 509 F.Supp.2d at 1284 (quoting Compupay, 654 So.2d at 948).

Penzer appealed the Southern District’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit, which concluded that “[njeither the policy exclusions nor Florida public policy lead to denial of coverage.” Penzer, 545 F.3d at 1311. However, the Eleventh Circuit also found that the disposition of this case rested on an unsettled issue of Florida law and that “[a] pure legal question of the interpretation of widely used language in commercial liability insurance is at issue.” Id. Accordingly, it certified its question to this Court. Id. at 1312.

II. ANALYSIS

This case presents a question of insurance policy interpretation, which is a question of law, subject to de novo review. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Pozzi Window Co., 984 So.2d 1241, 1246 (Fla.2008).

In interpreting insurance contracts, this Court follows the generally accepted rules of construction, meaning that “[i]nsurance contracts are construed according to their plain meaning, with any ambiguities construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage.” U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So.2d 871, 877 (Fla.2007) (citing Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So.2d 528, 532 (Fla.2005)). “If the relevant policy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and another limiting coverage, the insurance policy is considered ambiguous.” Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., 969 So.2d 288, 291 (Fla.2007) (quoting Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla.2000)). To find in favor of the insured on this basis, however, the policy must actually be ambiguous. Garcia, 969 So.2d at 291 (citing Taunts Holdings, 913 So.2d at 532). “A provision is not ambiguous simply because it is complex or requires analysis.... ‘[I]f a policy provision is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms.’ ” Garcia, 969 So.2d at 291 (citation omitted) (quoting Taurus Holdings, 913 So.2d at 532).

Here, the policy language at issue is, “oral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.” Three terms — “publication,” “material,” and “right of privacy” — are particularly relevant, and none are defined by the policy. Consequently, the first step towards discerning the plain meaning of the phrase is to “consult references [that are] commonly relied upon to supply the accepted meaning of [the] words.” Garcia, 969 So.2d at 292 (citing Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Novak, 453 So.2d 1116, 1118 (Fla.1984)).

The first term, “publication” is defined as “communication (as of news or information) to the public: public announcement” or as “the act or process of issuing copies (as a book, photograph, or musical score) for general distribution to the public.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1836 (1981). The definition also refers the reader to the definition of “publish.” Id. To publish is “to place before the public (as through a mass medium): DISSEMINATE.” Id. at 1837. Here, sending 24,000 unsolicited blast-facsimile advertisements to Mr. Penzer and others is included in the broad definition of “publication” because it constitutes a communication of information disseminated to the public and it is “the act or process of issuing copies ... for genei*al distribution to the public.”

“Material” has several definitions, two of which are “of, relating to, or consisting of matter,” and “something (as data, observations, perceptions, ideas) that may through intellectual operation be synthesized or further elaborated or otherwise reworked into a more finished form or a new form or that may serve as the basis for arriving at fresh interpretations or judgments or conclusions.” Id. at 1392. In this case, the faxed paper containing the unwanted advertisement meets the definition of “material” since a faxed advertisement “consists] of matter,” and “something that may ... be synthesized or further elaborated or ... may serve as the basis for arriving at fresh interpretations or judgments or conclusions.”

A “right” is “something to which one has a just claim” or “something that justly accrues or falls to one: something that one may properly claim: one’s due.” Id. at 1955. This plain meaning of “right” invokes the legal authority one must possess in order to assert a proper claim.

Because the policy provides coverage for a violation of a “right of privacy,” which can only arise from the law, it is not necessary to separately discern the plain meaning of “privacy.” If “privacy” was not preceded by “right of’ then the dictionary definition of “privacy” would be relevant under a plain meaning analysis. Stated another way, the plain meaning of “right of privacy” is the legal claim one may make for privacy, which is to be gleaned from federal or Florida law, rather than defined by a dictionary. In this case, the source of the right of privacy is the TCPA, which provides the privacy right to seclusion. See Valley Forge, 307 Ill.Dec. 653, 860 N.E.2d at 315 (“The receipt of an unsolicited fax advertisement implicates a person’s right of privacy insofar as it violates a person’s seclusion, and such a violation is one of the injuries that a TCPA fax-ad claim is intended to vindicate.”); Hooters, 157 F. App’x at 206 (“[T]he findings accompanying the TCPA legislation illustrate that Congress was expressly concerned about protecting privacy interests.”); Park Univ., 442 F.3d at 1249 (“Courts have consistently held the TCPA protects a species of privacy interest in the sense of seclusion. ‘Looking at how Congress described unsolicited fax advertisements, it is clear that Congress viewed violations of the Act as ‘private nuisances’ and ‘invasions of privacy’ under ordinary, lay meanings of these phrases.’ ”) (quoting Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lou Fusz Auto. Network, Inc., 401 F.3d 876, 881(8th Cir.2005)); Res. Bankshares Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 407 F.3d 631, 639 (4th Cir.2005) (“[T]he harm occasioned by unsolicited faxes involves protection of some sort of ‘privacy.’ ”); W. Rim, 269 F.Supp.2d at 847 (“The stated purpose of the TCPA ... is to protect the privacy of individuals from receiving unsolicited faxed advertisements.”) (citing Int’l Sci. & Tech. Inst., Inc. v. Inacom Commc’ns, Inc., 106 F.3d 1146, 1150 (4th Cir.1997)).

As stated previously, the policy provision provides coverage for a written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy. The facts of the instant case demonstrate that there was a written dissemination of 24,000 facsimiles that violated the TCPA. Comparing the policy’s language to [the facts of this case]: there was a written publication [dissemination] of material [of 24,000 facsimiles] that violated a person’s right of privacy [that violated the TCPA]. Therefore, applying our plain meaning analysis, we hold that Transportation’s insurance policy provides coverage for sending unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA.

Transportation argues that the doctrine of the last antecedent, a grammar-based canon of statutory construction, should apply. According to the doctrine of the last antecedent,

“relative and qualifying words, ptaases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to, or including, others more remote.” City of St. Petersburg v. Nasworthy, 751 So.2d 772, 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The last antecedent is the “last word, phrase, or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence.” 2A Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.33 (7th ed.2007).

Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803, 811 (Fla.2008). • Therefore, Transportation contends that the phrase “that violates a person’s right of privacy,” as written in the policy provision, modifies the term “material,” as opposed to “publication,” and thus can only apply when the content of the material violates a person’s right of privacy. Accordingly, Transportation urges, only a violation of the secrecy right of privacy will trigger coverage, not a violation of seclusion. We disagree.

First, the doctrine of the last antecedent is not an absolute rule. See United States v. Hayes, — U.S. -, -, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 1086, 172 L.Ed.2d 816 (2009) (“The rule of the last antecedent ... ‘is not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning.’ ”) (quoting Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26, 124 S.Ct. 376, 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003)); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Dep’t. of Ins., 664 So.2d 312, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“This rule of statutory construction ... is not controlling or inflexible.”) (quoting 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes § 230 (1995)). And the doctrine cannot be applied in a way that ignores the plain reading of the language. “When several words are followed by a clause which is applicable as much to the first and other words as to the last, the natural construction of the language demands that the clause be read as applicable to all.” Fortune Ins., 664 So.2d at 316 (quoting Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 348, 40 S.Ct. 516, 64 L.Ed. 944 (1920)). Here, as in Fortune Insurance, we find that the clause “that violates a person’s right of privacy” is applicable as much to “publication” as to “material;” therefore, the clause should be read as applicable to all. Accordingly, we reject Transportation’s assertion that the violation must arise from the content of the material in order to trigger coverage.

Furthermore, even if the phrase “that violates a person’s right of privacy” only modifies the term “material,” it does not follow that only the secrecy right to privacy is implicated because “material” could also invade one’s seclusion. See Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dandy-Jim, Inc., 182 Ohio App.3d 311, 912 N.E.2d 659, 666 (2009) (“ ‘The Act presumes that all advertising, so long as it is unsolicited, is an offensive intrusion into the recipient’s solitude.’ In other words, the unsolicited faxed advertisement itself is the ‘material’ that is offensive and violative of the individual’s right of privacy.” (quoting TIG Ins. Co. v. Dallas Basketball, Ltd., 129 S.W.3d 232, 238 (Tex.App.2004))) (citations omitted); see also Terra Nova, 869 N.E.2d at 573 (“On its face, the use of the phrase ‘right of privacy’ does not evince a plain meaning that is limited in the manner in which the insurers contend.”); Valley Forge, 307 Ill.Dec. 653, 860 N.E.2d at 316 (“[A] violation of privacy in the sense of a violation of seclusion is implicit in a TCPA fax-ad claim.”). Accordingly, we reject Transportation’s argument that the doctrine of the last antecedent requires a different plain reading of the policy.

III. CONCLUSION

Based upon our plain meaning analysis, we hold that an advertising injury provision in a commercial liability policy that provides coverage for an “oral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy” provides coverage for blast-faxing in violation of the TCPA. We therefore answer the certified question in the affirmative.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result only with an opinion, in which CANADY, J., concurs.

CANADY, J., concurs in result only with an opinion.

PARIENTE, J.,

concurring in result only.

Regardless of whether the insurance policy is read as clearly providing coverage as the majority concludes or whether the policy is ambiguous as Justice Canady concludes, the answer to the certified question is in the affirmative. The reason for that alternative answer based on an ambiguity in the policy language is that this Court construes ambiguous provisions in favor of the insured. Rather than deciding this case on the “plain language” as the majority does, I would acknowledge the existence of two reasonable interpretations but then, in accordance with the rules of construction for insurance policies, apply the interpretation in favor of coverage.

As stated by Justice Canady in his separate opinion in this case, this Court follows the rule that “[a]mbiguous coverage provisions are construed strictly against the insurer that drafted the policy and liberally in favor of the insured.” Fayad v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082, 1086 (Fla.2005). If there are two competing reasonable interpretations, one favoring coverage for the insured and one denying coverage for the insured, courts uniformly adopt the interpretation conferring coverage. See Container Corp. of Am. v. Md. Cas. Co., 707 So.2d 733, 735-36 (Fla.1998).

The reasoning for this long-established principle is that the insurer, as drafter of the policy language, has an obligation to make the scope of its coverage and any limitations from coverage clear and unambiguous in the actual language of the policy. As we recently stated in United States Fire Insurance Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So.2d 871, 884 (Fla.2007), if the insurer “intended to preclude coverage based on the cause of action asserted, it was incumbent on [the insurer] to include clear language to accomplish this result.”

The insurer in this case has contended that the wording of the policy provides coverage for situations where the content of the material-and not the act of sending it — violates a person’s right of privacy. While that is one reasonable interpretation of the policy, it is not the only reasonable interpretation. I agree with the rationale of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in interpreting New Jersey law on the same policy provisions defining advertising injury:

Although we are aware that “[a]n insurance policy is not ambiguous merely because two conflicting interpretations of it are suggested by the litigants,” in evaluating the ambiguity of the phrase, we cannot ignore the body of national case law addressing the same or similar policy language and falling on both sides of this interpretive ledger. It is fair to say that even the most sophisticated and informed insurance consumer would be confused as to the boundaries of advertising injury coverage in light of the deep difference of opinion symbolized in these cases.

Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. Fray-Witzer, 449 Mass. 406, 869 N.E.2d 565, 573 (2007) (citation and footnote omitted) (quoting Powell v. Alemaz, Inc., 335 N.J.Super. 33, 760 A.2d 1141, 1147 (Ct.App.Div.2000)). The ambiguity, in my view, arises because the policy language is unclear as to whether the phrase “violates a person’s right of privacy” refers to the publication of the material or the material itself.

The bottom line is that if the insurer, as the drafter of the language, intended to limit coverage to material whose content violated the right of privacy, then it could have easily done so by simply adding a phrase as follows: Oral or written publication of material, the content of which violates the right of privacy. Transportation Insurance Company did not do so and thus left the policy open to a reasonable interpretation in favor of coverage. See Terra Nova, 869 N.E.2d at 574 (“[H]ad [the insurers] wished their policies to pertain only to violations of privacy created by the content of material, it was incumbent on them to draft explicit policies to that effect.”).

For all of these reasons, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that insurance coverage should be extended and agree with answering the certified question in the affirmative.

CANADY, J., concurs.

CANADY, J.,

concurring in result only.

Although I agree that the certified question should be answered in the affirmative, I do not concur in the majority’s conclusion that the policy provisions at issue are unambiguous. Instead, I conclude that the resolution of the question presented by this ease is dictated by the rule that “[a]m-biguous coverage provisions are construed strictly against the insurer that drafted the policy and liberally in favor of the insured.” Fayad v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082, 1086 (Fla.2005).

The clause at issue provides coverage for advertising injuries arising from “[ojral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.” An ordinary reader of this clause would reasonably be in doubt concerning whether the violations covered by the clause must be based on the informational content of the material that is published or may be based on the physical intrusion of the material.

The existence of two different senses in which the noun “material” is commonly used contributes to the ambiguity. One sense of “material” denotes a physical object: “[t]he matter of which a thing is or may be made.” 1 Shorter Oxford, English Dictionary 1723 (6th ed.). This sense of the term has nothing to do with informational content. Another sense of “material” is used to identify “information, evidence, ideas, etc., for use in writing a book or script, drawing a conclusion, etc.” Id. at 1724. This sense of the term has everything to do with informational content.

The ambiguity is compounded by the existence of two senses in which the noun “publication” is commonly used. “[Pjubli-cation” may denote “[t]he action of making something generally known” — a definition which points to informational content. 2 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 2395 (6th ed.). The term also may denote “[t]he process of producing and issuing ... printed or reproduced matter” — a definition which focuses on the physical object disseminated. Id.

When reference is made to a “written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy,” an ordinary reader will not — unless sufficient contextual clues are present — understand with certainty whether the reference is to a violation caused by the intrusion of the writing as a physical object, by the informational content of the writing, or by either. The relevant context here does not provide an ordinary reader with a sufficient basis for rejecting the reasonable possibility that “written publication of material” denotes the physical object received when a fax transmission is disseminated and that the policy therefore covers privacy violations based on the intrusion of such a physical object. Neither does the context provide adequate grounds for rejecting as unreasonable a reading which limits the meaning of “written publication of material” to information or ideas — that is, to the informational content that is published and causes a privacy violation.

Given the different relevant senses in which “material” and “publication” are commonly used and the lack of a sufficient contextual basis to guide the ordinary reader to an unequivocal meaning of the policy provision, the plain meaning rule does not provide a persuasive basis for deciding the question presented here. Since the reading of the policy advocated by Penzer, the insured, is not a reading that an ordinary reader would reject as unreasonable, Penzer’s reading must prevail.

      . We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const.

      . The TCPA is a federal statute that provides, in relevant part, that it is "unlawful for any person ... to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) (2001). Each violation of the TCPA is subject to a private right of action by the recipient who may recover his actual monetary losses or $500.00 in damages, whichever is greater. Id. § 227(b)(3).

      . Although Transportation initially claimed that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Southeast Wireless, the duty to defend is not at issue because Southeast Wireless entered into a settlement agreement with the class and the class released Southeast Wireless from all liability. Id. at 1281.

      . Certain exclusions are also detailed in the liability policy, namely:
      “Advertising Injury” arising out of:
      (1) Breach of contract, other than misappropriation of advertising ideas under an implied contract;
      (2) The failure of goods, products and services to conform with the advertised quality or performance;
      (3) The wrong description of the price of goods, products or services; or
      (4) An offense committed by an insured whose business is advertising, broadcasting, publishing or telecasting.
      The Eleventh Circuit stated that none of the policy exclusions prevent coverage, concluding that Transportation “has not met its burden to prove that coverage is inapplicable under any of the policy exclusions or other defenses.” Penzer, 545 F.3d at 1310. Because there are no issues relating to the exclusions presented to this Court, we make no comment regarding the merits of that issue.

      .This and similar language has been widely litigated, and courts applying diverse reasoning have come down on both sides of the ledger. For example, cases holding that similar policy provisions provide coverage for TCPA violations include: Park Univ. Enters., Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 442 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir.2006) (finding coverage applying a plain meaning analysis); Hooters, 157 F. App'x 201 (11th Cir.2005) (finding coverage based upon Georgia law that required adopting interpretation that favored greater coverage); W. Rim Inv. Advisors, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 269 F.Supp.2d 836, 847 (N.D.Tex.2003) (finding entitlement to coverage based upon the stated purpose of the TCPA — "to protect the privacy of individuals from receiving unsolicited faxed advertisements”); Prime TV, LLC v. Travelers Ins. Co., 223 F.Supp.2d 744 (M.D.N.C.2002) (finding coverage based upon plain meaning analysis); Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. Fray-Witzer, 449 Mass. 406, 869 N.E.2d 565, 573-74 (2007) (holding "right of privacy" ambiguous, but finding coverage based on New Jersey law that required that ambiguities "be liberally construed in favor of the insured”); Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Swiderski Elecs., Inc., 223 Ill.2d 352, 307 Ill.Dec. 653, 860 N.E.2d 307 (2006) (finding coverage based on plain meaning of the policy’s terms).
      Examples of cases holding that similar policy provisions do not provide coverage include: Am. States Ins. Co. v. Capital Assocs. of Jackson County, Inc., 392 F.3d 939, 941 (7th Cir.2004) (finding no coverage in part because named plaintiff in class action was a corporation "and businesses lack interests in seclusion,” and because it interpreted the policy as only covering a violation of the secrecy type of privacy), but see Valley Forge, 223 Ill.2d 352, 307 Ill.Dec. 653, 860 N.E.2d 307 (declining to follow American States as it applied to Illinois law); Erie Ins. Exch. v. Kevin T. Watts, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-00867-JDTTAB, 2006 WL 3776255, *6 (S.D.Ind. Dec. 19, 2006) (finding no coverage in part because named plaintiff in class action was a corporation, “lacking the necessary legal interests to pursue an invasion of privacy claim”); Ace Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 580 F.Supp.2d 678, 688 (N.D.Ill.2008) (relying on American States and Indiana law to find that “TCPA violations implicate a different privacy interest than that covered by the advertising injury provisions of the policy”); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Websolv Computing, Inc., 580 F.3d 543 (7th Cir.2009) (following its earlier decision in American States, despite Valley Forge, concluding that Iowa would be more likely than Illinois to adopt the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of the policy).
      As explained more fully in our opinion, we are more persuaded by the reasoning in those cases that found coverage by applying a plain meaning analysis.

      . Because we apply a plain meaning analysis, we need not consult the rules of construction that apply when there is an ambiguity. Therefore, we reject Transportation's rule of construction arguments, including the doctrine of noscitur a sociis.