First Union Corp. v. State, Dept. of Ins. and Treasurer, 89-2835

• Decision Date: 08 February 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-2835,89-2835
• Citation: 568 So.2d 57
• Parties: 15 Fla. L. Weekly D373 FIRST UNION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 57

568 So.2d 57

15 Fla. L. Weekly D373

FIRST UNION CORPORATION, Appellant, v.STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, Appellee.

No. 89-2835.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Feb. 8, 1990.

J. Thomas Cardwell of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for appellant.

Roy H. Schmidt, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, the department of insurance (the department), moves to dismiss this appeal arguing that appellant is seeking to improperly collaterally attack a declaratory statement issued by the department.We agree and grant the motion to dismiss.

In 1988, appellant filed with the department a petition for declaratory statement.The department filed the requested declaratory statement on August 5, 1988, and when appellant sought clarification, the department filed an amended declaratory statement on September 2, 1988.The department informed appellant of its right to appeal within 30 days, however, no appeal was taken.

Appellant then sent the department a proposed marketing plan to determine whether it was in compliance with the declaratory statement.The department answered by letter dated September 27, 1989, stating that "all activities presented in your proposed marketing plan which are consistent with the amended declaratory statement are acceptable, and those proposed activities which are inconsistent with the declaratory statement are unacceptable."Appellant then filed a notice of administrative appeal of the department's letter.

The department now moves to dismiss this appeal, arguing that the letter is not final agency action, but directs appellant to refer to the declaratory statement.The department states that appellant should not be able to resurrect the opportunity for judicial review of the...