DNA CENTER FOR NEUROLOGY AND REHABILITATION v. Progressive American Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DNA CENTER FOR NEUROLOGY AND REHABILITATION v. Progressive American Insurance Co.

13 So. 3d 74, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5746, 2009 WL 1346129

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 2009

Docket5D07-1878

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 13 So. 3d 74 (DNA CENTER FOR NEUROLOGY AND REHABILITATION v. Progressive American Insurance Co.) 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

DNA CENTER FOR NEUROLOGY AND REHABILITATION v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 13 So. 3d 74, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5746, 2009 WL 1346129 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

COHEN, J.

DNA Center for Neurology and Rehabilitation (hereinafter “DNA”) challenges the entry of summary judgment in favor of Progressive American Insurance Co. The propriety of the summary judgment will not be addressed because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. Although neither party raised this issue before the trial court, or on appeal, this does not prevent us from addressing it. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Daystar Farms, Inc., 803 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte by an appellate court); see also 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So.2d 1297, 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created by agreement, waiver, inadvertence, or a court’s exercise of power).

DNA’s amended complaint alleged it was seeking damages greater than $500, but less than $5000. The exhibits attached to the amended complaint appear to indicate the damages sought were less than $500. Instead of filing its amended complaint in county court, DNA filed it in circuit court. However, county courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions in law not exceeding $15,000, unless the action is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court. § 34.01(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). A suit for damages due to nonpayment of personal injury protection benefits is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court. Consequently, the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over DNA’s suit and the summary judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for transfer to the county court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

COHEN, J.

DNA Center for Neurology and Rehabilitation (hereinafter “DNA”) challenges the entry of summary judgment in favor of Progressive American Insurance Co. The propriety of the summary judgment will not be addressed because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. Although neither party raised this issue before the trial court, or on appeal, this does not prevent us from addressing it. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Daystar Farms, Inc., 803 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte by an appellate court); see also 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So.2d 1297, 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created by agreement, waiver, inadvertence, or a court’s exercise of power).

DNA’s amended complaint alleged it was seeking damages greater than $500, but less than $5000. The exhibits attached to the amended complaint appear to indicate the damages sought were less than $500. Instead of filing its amended complaint in county court, DNA filed it in circuit court. However, county courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions in law not exceeding $15,000, unless the action is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court. § 34.01(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). A suit for damages due to nonpayment of personal injury protection benefits is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court. Consequently, the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over DNA’s suit and the summary judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for transfer to the county court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 So. 3d 74, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5746, 2009 WL 1346129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dna-center-for-neurology-and-rehabilitation-v-progressive-american-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack