Duncan v. United Automobile Insurance Co.

49 So. 3d 312, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19456
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 22, 2010·No. 3D10-687·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Tamara Duncan petitions for second-tier certiorari review of an order entered by the appellate division of the circuit court reversing a final summary judgment which the trial court entered in a case involving a suit for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. We deny the petition because the petitioner has an adequate remedy on appeal.

Certiorari review of non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A) is “an extraordinary remedy which should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So.2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Furthermore, we remind counsel that a certiorari petition must satisfy three requirements before a district court can grant relief from an erroneous interlocutory order. “A petitioner must establish (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the trial (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.” Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Accordingly, we deny the petition because the petitioner has an adequate remedy on appeal.

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

Duncan v. United Automobile Insurance Co., 49 So. 3d 312, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19456 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

49 So. 3d 312 (Duncan v. United Automobile Insurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Progressive American Insurance Co. v. Ortega
50 So. 3d 783 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Progressive American Ins. Co. v. Ortega
50 So. 3d 783 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)