Ogur v. Mogel, 80-1641
| Decision Date | 04 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1641,80-1641 |
| Citation | 390 So.2d 105 |
| Parties | Milton OGUR and Colonial Penn Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Mollie MOGEL et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and James C. Blecke, Miami, for appellants.
Daniels & Hicks and Sam Daniels, Miami, Richard E. Hardwick, Coral Gables, Greene & Cooper, Preddy, Kutner & Hardy and Michael Parenti, Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman & Greer and Andrew J. Mirabito, Robert A. Ginsburg and Thomas Goldstein, Corlett, Merritt, Killian & Sikes and Gerald E. Rosser, Kaplan, Sicking, Hessen, Sugarman, Rosenthal & Zientz and Arnold Hessen, Stanley M. Rosenblatt and Edward B. Greene, Miami, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Mollie Mogel, a pedestrian injured when a rental vehicle and another car collided, sued, inter alia, the operator, lessee and owner of the rental vehicle, and their respective insurers. These defendants filed cross-claims for indemnity against one another and, thereafter, cross-motions for summary judgment seeking, inter alia, a determination of the order in which the insurance coverage would be applied were Mogel ultimately to prevail in her suit. The trial court entered a Summary Judgment Regarding Insurance Coverage, finding that the insurers of the operator, lessee and owner, would, successively, be liable to the extent of their respective policy limits. 1
Ogur and Colonial Penn Insurance Company (the lessee and his insurer) took this interlocutory appeal, which the operator, the owner and their insurers have moved to dismiss.
We dismiss the appeal upon a holding that (1) Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), the purported authority for this appeal, gives us jurisdiction of an interlocutory appeal only from non-final orders which determine "the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief"; (2) the trial court's order, setting forth the future indemnity rights of the defendants and the sequence in which the defendants would be responsible to pay any judgment in favor of Mogel, (a) did not determine an "issue of liability," since the liability of any of these defendants was necessarily inchoate prior to such a judgment, cf. American Heritage Institutional Securities, Inc. v. Price, 379 So.2d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B E & K, Inc. v. Seminole Kraft Corp., 90-3578
...Co. v. Bruns, 443 So.2d 959 (Fla.1984), U.S. Fidelity and Guarantee Co. v. Sloan, 410 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Ogur v. Mogel, 390 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Seminole Kraft further argues that review by certiorari is not appropriate because BE & K has failed to demonstrate that ......
-
Canal Ins. Co. v. Reed
...for summary judgment before determination of liability issue was not type of non-final order reviewable under 9.130); Ogur v. Mogel, 390 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (order entered on summary judgment determining order of application of liability insurance coverage in satisfaction of any ju......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns
...district courts of appeal decisions in U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Sloan, 410 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Ogur v. Mogel, 390 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The district court recognized and certified express conflict with Summers and Garner. For the reasons below, we approve the ......
-
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Summers
...to those which ... determine ... the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief. The case of Ogur v. Mogel, 390 So.2d 105 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), is directly on point. The court in Ogur held that a similar order was not an appealable nonfinal order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C......