MERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. CATHERINE THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case Nos. 6D23-1537, 6D23-1570 CONSOLIDATED

Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CA-010641-O

_____________________________

MERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant,

v.

CATHERINE THOMAS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Denise Kim Beamer, Judge.

December 15, 2023

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, Mercury Indemnity Company of America (“Mercury”) appeals two non-final orders denying its motion to compel appraisal.1 As to case number 6D23-1537, we affirm without further discussion. With respect to case number 6D23-1570, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the subsequent order clarifying or modifying the prior order because the appeal of the prior order

1 These cases were transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.

was pending. See Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 338 So. 3d 1119, 1121–22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the subsequent order.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

WHITE, SMITH and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Frank A. Zacherl and Oliver Sepulveda, of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Miami, and Alyssa L. Corey, of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Tampa, for Appellant.

Jacob Phillips and Amy L. Judkins, of Normand PLLC, Orlando, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED