National Life Insurance v. Harrell

891 So. 2d 1078, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18839, 2004 WL 2870352
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 10, 2004
DocketNo. 1D04-2610
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 891 So. 2d 1078 (National Life Insurance v. Harrell) 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
National Life Insurance v. Harrell, 891 So. 2d 1078, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18839, 2004 WL 2870352 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

National Life Insurance Company, the petitioner, seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s non-final order denying Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings regarding the claim made by Mary Elizabeth Harrell, the respondent, for statutory, first-party bad faith under section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner asserts that it discharged its obligation to “tender” payment of certain insurance benefits within the 60-day “cure” period in statutory subsection (3)(d), such that Respondent has no cause of action under the statute. Because Petitioner has not demonstrated that “the challenged order is a departure from the essential requirements of law that causes material injury, and ... leaves [1079]*1079the petitioner with no other adequate remedy to review the alleged erroneous order,” Hartford Ins. Co. v. Mainstream Constr. Group, Inc., 864 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), we deny the petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(A) (providing for district court certiorari jurisdiction over “non-final orders of lower tribunals other than as prescribed by rule 9.130”); see Meyers v. Chartrand, 739 So.2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“Interpleader contemplates the deposit of disputed funds into the registry of the court, or such other places as the parties agree. It is the deposit of the funds pendente lite which is the basis for relieving the stakeholder from further liability”).

PETITION DENIED.

ALLEN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.

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

Related

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brewer
940 So. 2d 1284 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
891 So. 2d 1078, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18839, 2004 WL 2870352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-life-insurance-v-harrell-fladistctapp-2004.