Sonic Automotive v. Shofer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sonic Automotive v. Shofer

881 So. 2d 739, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13736, 2004 WL 2071213

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 17, 2004

DocketNo. 5D04-706

StatusPublished

This text of 881 So. 2d 739 (Sonic Automotive v. Shofer) 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

Sonic Automotive v. Shofer, 881 So. 2d 739, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13736, 2004 WL 2071213 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sonic Automotive appeals the non-final order entered by the trial court denying its motion for summary judgment, arguing that reversal of the order is warranted because the trial court should have concluded that Sonic was immune from suit based upon the inapplicability of the intentional torts exception to the workers’ com[740]*740pensation statute. See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2002)(providing that employee lawsuits based upon injuries caused by employers’ intentional torts are not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Act). However, in refusing to enter summary judgment in Sonic’s favor,- the trial court did not make a conclusive and final determination, as a matter of law, that an intentional tort had been established, but rather, the court decided that genuine issues of material fact exist in the record on this issue. As such, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the propriety of said decision. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v)(authorizing the district courts jurisdiction to review non-final orders determining as a matter of law that a party is not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity). See also Wheeled Coach Industries, Inc. v. Annulis, 852 So.2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, the instant appeal must be dismissed.

DISMISSED.

SHARP, W., PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sonic Automotive appeals the non-final order entered by the trial court denying its motion for summary judgment, arguing that reversal of the order is warranted because the trial court should have concluded that Sonic was immune from suit based upon the inapplicability of the intentional torts exception to the workers’ com[740]*740pensation statute. See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2002)(providing that employee lawsuits based upon injuries caused by employers’ intentional torts are not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Act). However, in refusing to enter summary judgment in Sonic’s favor,- the trial court did not make a conclusive and final determination, as a matter of law, that an intentional tort had been established, but rather, the court decided that genuine issues of material fact exist in the record on this issue. As such, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the propriety of said decision. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v)(authorizing the district courts jurisdiction to review non-final orders determining as a matter of law that a party is not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity). See also Wheeled Coach Industries, Inc. v. Annulis, 852 So.2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, the instant appeal must be dismissed.

DISMISSED.

SHARP, W., PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

881 So. 2d 739, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13736, 2004 WL 2071213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sonic-automotive-v-shofer-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack