US Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Sloan

410 So. 2d 549
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 9, 1982
DocketAB-232
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 410 So. 2d 549 (US Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Sloan) 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
US Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Sloan, 410 So. 2d 549 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

410 So.2d 549 (1982)

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO., Appellant,
v.
James SLOAN, et al., Appellee.

No. AB-232.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 1982.
Rehearing Denied March 24, 1982.

Danny L. Kepner of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, Pensacola, for appellant.

Philip A. Bates of Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, Pensacola, for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of an order which determines the amount of uninsured motorist coverage which exists pursuant to two policies of insurance. The order was entered on joint motion for summary judgment as to the issue of insurance coverage; the issue of liability has not yet been determined, and awaits final hearing on the merits. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review the contested order and dismiss the appeal sue sponte.

Jurisdiction to review a trial court's non-final order is prescribed by Fla.R.App.P. 9.130,[1] the terms of which do not permit an appeal in the circumstances of this case. Subsection (a)(3)(C)(iv) of that rule has been construed as not permitting review of orders which address the issue of insurance coverage without determining liability. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Morris, 370 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Although Fidelity Casualty Co. v. Scott, 386 So.2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), permitted interlocutory appeal of a workers' *550 compensation order on the issue of insurance coverage, we would now conclude that Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) does not authorize review of such an order by appeal.[2]

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] See Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(1)(B).

[2] We also note that Rule 9.030(b)(1)(B) has since been amended so as to limit the applicability of Rule 9.130 only to orders of circuit courts. Review of such non-final workers' compensation orders may now be sought by invoking this court's certiorari jurisdiction.

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

Related

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Potter
729 So. 2d 532 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Canal Ins. Co. v. Reed
653 So. 2d 1085 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
HINES ELEC. v. McClure
616 So. 2d 132 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
ESI v. Taylor
588 So. 2d 1017 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
BE & K, INC. v. Seminole Kraft Corp.
583 So. 2d 361 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Protective Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Robbins
483 So. 2d 782 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Braverman
480 So. 2d 121 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns
443 So. 2d 959 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Kent Insurance v. Hobbs
421 So. 2d 658 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
MILLS ELECTRICAL CONT. v. Marthens
417 So. 2d 700 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
General Electric Company v. Hawkins
413 So. 2d 836 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Wash House v. Tucker
413 So. 2d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
410 So. 2d 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-fidelity-and-guar-co-v-sloan-fladistctapp-1982.