Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

November 13, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Appeals — Insurance — Order requiring insurer to pay insured specific sum for fire damage to his building within 10 days of date of order, while leaving unresolved other, factually related claims, including one for fire damage to personal property, did not complete judicial labor in trial court on factually related matters and was not appealable as a partial final judgment — Because order requires party to pay but allows no avenue to appeal, order is subject to certiorari review — Accordingly, initial brief treated as petition for writ of certiorari, and insured directed to file response within 20 days

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2483a

PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ENRIQUE GONZALEZ, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-923. L.T. Case No. 19-7413. November 4, 2020. An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. Counsel: Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., and David C. Borucke (Tampa), for appellant. Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez, & Martinez, P.L., and Steven E. Gurian, for appellee.

(Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and LOBREE, JJ.)ON MOTION TO DISMISS

(LOGUE, J.) This matter is before us on Appellee Enrique Gonzalez’s motion to dismiss. This is a first-party insurance case. The June 17, 2020 order under review requires People’s Trust Insurance Company to pay Gonzalez $70,800 for fire damage to his building within ten days of the date of the order. The order, however, leaves unresolved other, factually related claims including one for fire damage to personal property.

Because the order does not complete the judicial labor in the trial court on factually related matters, we agree with Gonzalez that the order under review does not qualify as a partial final judgment, which would be appealable as a final order. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 9.110(k). We also agree with Gonzalez that the order is not on the list of non-final orders authorized by the Supreme Court to be appealed on an interlocutory basis. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 9.130. For this reason, Gonzalez is eminently correct that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of this order at this time.

However, precisely because the order as written requires a party to pay but allows no avenue to appeal, the order is subject to review through a petition for certiorari. Courts have consistently found that an order resolving only part of a civil lawsuit by requiring a party to make an interim payment while leaving intertwined factual matters unresolved presents the type of irreparable harm remediable by issuance of a writ of certiorari. See, e.g., Team Richco, LLC v. Rapid Sec. Sols., LLC, 290 So. 3d 629, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (issuing writ and quashing partial judgment that results in “irreparable injury where it authorizes execution prior to entry of a final, appealable order”); East Ave., LLC v. Insignia Bank, 136 So. 3d 659, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (same).

As was done in these cases, we are bound to treat Appellant’s filing as seeking the correct remedy. See Fla. R. Civ. P 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought . . . .”). Accordingly, we treat People’s Trust’s initial brief as a petition for writ of certiorari. Enrique Gonzalez shall file a response within 20 days from the date of this order.

Motion to dismiss denied.* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Windstorm loss — Notice of loss — Timeliness — Prejudice to insurer — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that insured failed to overcome presumption that insurer was prejudiced by his failure to timely report claim for hurricane damage — Insured failed to act with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time where insured waited two years and seven months to report claim of hurricane damage to his roof — Conclusory affidavits submitted by insured in opposition to summary judgment were insufficient to rebut presumption of prejudice where passage of time rendered insurer unable to determine what current damage was directly attributable to the storm — Court rejects argument that policy was ambiguous because it contained a clause imposing a blanket bar on any hurricane-related claim beyond three-year window and a second clause requiring insured to provide prompt notice of any claim — Clauses, when read together, require an insured to file any hurricane-related claim within three years of the storm, and to act swiftly upon discovering damages
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights
  • Consumer law — Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Costs — Prevailing party — Where partial summary judgment as to liability was granted in favor of plaintiff, but jury awarded no damages, it was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to deny defendant’s request for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party on Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim — No error in denying fees and costs under proposals for settlement presented to trial court — None of the proposals proffered satisfied strict requirements of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 where proposals required plaintiff to execute a release but failed to describe release with sufficient detail, contained ambiguity as to punitive damages, and required payment from date of settlement without defining such date — Error to deny request for costs under section 57.041 — A zero judgment constitutes a judgment in favor of the defendant for purposes of recovery of costs under the statute
  • Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Discovery — Relevance — Appeals — Certiorari — Order requiring defendant’s corporate representative to address areas of inquiry related to defendant’s corporate-wide operations is quashed — Allowing corporate-wide discovery amounted to carte blanche discovery that results in irreparable harm and departs from essential requirements of the law — Information is not discoverable based on its relevance to show negligent mode of operation because, under section 768.0755, negligent mode of operation is not a viable theory of recovery in slip-and-fall cases
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982