City of Lake Mary v. Franklin, 95-0232
| Decision Date | 01 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-0232,95-0232 |
| Citation | 668 So.2d 712 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D564 CITY OF LAKE MARY, Appellant, v. Sherri FRANKLIN, f/k/a Sherri Glisson, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
We withdraw the opinion filed December 22, 1995, and substitute the following in its stead. The City of Lake Mary (City) appeals the trial court's order denying its motion for summary judgment, and alternatively the City seeks review of the trial court's order denying its requested jury instruction on the issue of workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). Because this appeal is untimely as to the order denying summary judgment, and because the denial of a requested jury instruction is not an appealable order, this court lacks jurisdiction, and this appeal must be dismissed.
On May 23, 1991, Sherri Franklin (Franklin), a police officer, and Berrios, a volunteer firefighter, were operating vehicles owned by the City's Department of Public Safety when they collided, causing injury to Franklin. Following the collision, Franklin filed a workers' compensation claim with the City. The claim was settled and the Judge of Compensation Claims approved the settlement, releasing the City from further liability for workers' compensation benefits.
After the workers' compensation settlement order was entered, Franklin sued the City for negligence. The City filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it was entitled to judgment in its favor on the basis of immunity because workers' compensation was Franklin's exclusive remedy pursuant to section 440.11. This motion was denied by written order on April 7, 1994, without explanation. No appeal was taken from the summary judgment order, and nothing more was heard regarding this issue until the pretrial conference on January 18, 1995.
At the conference, the City requested that the trial court issue a jury instruction concerning the workers' compensation immunity issue. On January 20, 1995, the court entered its written order ruling that the City was not entitled to the immunity instruction. This appeal ensued.
The trial court's order ruling upon the City's request for a jury instruction is not a non-final order for which an interlocutory appeal may be taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The real question thus becomes whether the City's failure to appeal the trial court's earlier order denying the City's motion for summary judgment on the immunity issue has deprived this court of jurisdiction over the instant appeal. We conclude that it has.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) permits review of non-final orders which determine "that a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law." 1 In Ross v. Baker, 632 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the court applied this rule, explaining:
It seems unusual to treat an order denying a motion as an order "determining" an issue. At least in some instances, such orders may merely establish that the trial court currently views the issue of immunity to involve unresolved factual questions as well as legal questions. Nevertheless, we consider that the Supreme Court intends for this court to review this type of order.
Id. at 225 (emphasis added).
In the instant case, the trial court's denial of the summary judgment determined that the City was not entitled to the workers' compensation immunity defense as a matter of law. The City argues that Rule 9.130 permits interlocutory review only of orders determining once and for all that there is no workers' compensation immunity and that the rule does not permit review of orders merely determining that the applicability of workers' compensation immunity as an issue of fact. However, the court in Breakers Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gloger, 646 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), specifically rejected this argument. In Breakers, the fourth district determined that an order denying a motion for summary judgment because there were issues of fact concerning immunity is an order determining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
...This is to resolve the confusion evidenced in Breakers Palm Beach v. Gloger, 646 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), City of Lake Mary v. Franklin, 668 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and their progeny by clarifying that this subdivision was not intended to grant a right of nonfinal review if the......
-
AMEND. TO FLA. RULES OF APPELLATE PROC.
...This is to resolve the confusion evidenced in Breakers Palm Beach v. Gloger, 646 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). City of Lake Mary v. Franklin, 668 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and their progeny by clarifying that this subdivision was not intended to grant a right of non-final review if th......
-
AMEND. TO FLA. RULES OF APPELLATE PROC., SC00-718.
...This is to resolve the confusion evidenced in Breakers Palm Beach v. Gloger, 646 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994),City of Lake Mary v. Franklin, 668 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and their progeny by clarifying that this subdivision was not intended to grant a right of nonfinal review if the ......
-
Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc.
...orders denying summary judgment when the denial was the result of the existence of disputed facts. See, e.g., City of Lake Mary v. Franklin, 668 So.2d 712, 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Breakers Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gloger, 646 So.2d 237, 237-38 (Fla. 4th DCA We have held that "[t]he thrust of ru......