Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Potter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Potter

729 So. 2d 532, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4705, 1999 WL 212836

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1999

DocketNo. 99-0765

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 729 So. 2d 532 (Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Potter, 729 So. 2d 532, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4705, 1999 WL 212836 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

Petitioner insurer seeks a writ of certiorari to review a non-final order determining that the respondent has uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued by petitioner. This order is not reviewable by certiorari because petitioner has an adequate remedy on appeal from final judgment. Nor is the order reviewable by non-final appeal as an order determining the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief, under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), because the trial court has only determined whether there is coverage, and not the issue of liability, i.e., the negligence of the uninsured motorist. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Sloan, 410 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

The order is not appealable under rule 9.110(n) either. That rule only authorizes an appeal from an order determining the issue of insurance coverage “in cases in which a claim has been made against an insured.” In this case there is no claim against the insured. This is a first party claim for UM coverage. We therefore lack jurisdiction, and dismiss the petition for cer-tiorari.

STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KLEIN, J.

Petitioner insurer seeks a writ of certiorari to review a non-final order determining that the respondent has uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued by petitioner. This order is not reviewable by certiorari because petitioner has an adequate remedy on appeal from final judgment. Nor is the order reviewable by non-final appeal as an order determining the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief, under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), because the trial court has only determined whether there is coverage, and not the issue of liability, i.e., the negligence of the uninsured motorist. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Sloan, 410 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

The order is not appealable under rule 9.110(n) either. That rule only authorizes an appeal from an order determining the issue of insurance coverage “in cases in which a claim has been made against an insured.” In this case there is no claim against the insured. This is a first party claim for UM coverage. We therefore lack jurisdiction, and dismiss the petition for cer-tiorari.

STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 So. 2d 532, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4705, 1999 WL 212836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auto-owners-insurance-co-v-potter-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack