Bailey v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Citation | 218 So.2d 761 |
| Decision Date | 05 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--333,68--333 |
| Parties | Jack D. BAILEY and Patricia Jean Bailey, Husband and Wife, Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William R. Hapner, of Rood, Hapner & Rivers, Tampa, and Howard C. Hadden, Tampa, for appellants.
Ronald D. McCall, of Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, for appellee.
Plaintiffs-appellants brought suit on a fire insurance policy issued on their dwelling by appellee. Several issues were joined by the pleadings, and defendant moved for a summary judgment. After argument the trial court entered an order, designated 'Summary Judgment', in which he made certain prefatory findings clearly adverse to plaintiffs-appellants on several issues, and further found, as to the remaining issues, that plaintiffs' action was premature. He concluded his order as follows:
'* * * It is therefore,
Ordered and Adjudged as follows:
1. That defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby granted.
2. That plaintiffs' action be and the same is hereby dismissed, without prejudice, however, to plaintiffs' right to commence an action timely (on the unmatured issues) as they may desire.
3. That defendant have judgment of and from plaintiffs for its costs in this behalf expended for which let execution issue.'
Appellee has not raised the question as to whether the foregoing order is an appealable final order or judgment. We have held, however, that we must raise it Sua sponte. 1
The words, '* * * defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby granted', and '* * * plaintiffs' action be and the same is hereby dismissed * * *' (though without prejudice to commence a timely action based on unmatured issues) are not the equivalent of the required traditional words that the plaintiffs '* * * take nothing by (their) suit and that the defendant go hence without day.', or words of like import. 2
Appellant suggested on oral argument, when queried by the Court as to the appealability of the 'Summary Judgment' in question, that the last sentence therein, i.e. 'That defendant have judgment of and from plaintiffs for its costs in this behalf expended for which let execution issue.', makes the 'Judgment' a final one. Whatever validity this argument has, it bears solely on the taxation of costs, which is ancillary to the substantive issues of the law suit. 3 Orders or judgments taxing costs are reviewable only in limited situations, none of which apply here. 4
In any event, regardless of the finality of the defendant's judgment for costs, we hold that there is no appealable final judgment in favor of defendant on the substantive issues raised by plaintiffs' complaint. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palardy v. Igrec, 79-1940
...order not subject to interlocutory appeal. McCready v. Villas Apartments, 379 So.2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bailey v. Allstate Insurance Co., 218 So.2d 761 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank and Trust Co., 208 So.2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Williams v. Maddren, 147 ......
-
Amelco Inv. Corp. v. Bryant Elec. Co.
...Morffi v. AIU Insurance Co., 479 So.2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Guth v. Howard, 362 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bailey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 218 So.2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); and Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, 99 So.2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Further, the trial court's order is not an appealabl......
-
Harris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 72--730
...ruling thereon anyhow; indeed we feel compelled to. Cf., Harris v. Mosteller (Fla.App.1971), 253 So.2d 275; Bailey v. Allstate Insurance Company (Fla.App.1969), 218 So.2d 761, and Chastain v. Embry (Fla.App.1960), 118 So.2d 33.2 See, Chapter 682, Fla.Stat.1971, F.S.A. Section 682.20 thereof......
-
Newmeyer v. Southeast Mortg. Co., 88-2639
...a final judgment, the appeal is dismissed. Shupack v. Allstate Ins. Co., 356 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Bailey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 218 So.2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, 99 So.2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); Fla.R.Civ.P. Form 1.994; see also McCready v. Villas Apartmen......