U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Sloan, AB-232
| Decision Date | 09 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AB-232,AB-232 |
| Citation | 410 So.2d 549 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO., Appellant, v. James SLOAN, et al., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Danny L. Kepner of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, Pensacola, for appellant.
Philip A. Bates of Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, Pensacola, for appellee.
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 sua 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' 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.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hines Elec. v. McClure
...courts, it was determined that interlocutory appeals were no longer allowed in compensation cases. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Sloan, 410 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).7 But see Doll House, Inc. v. Porter, 436 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (certiorari review allowed on covera......
-
B E & K, Inc. v. Seminole Kraft Corp., 90-3578
...9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). Seminole Kraft relies on Travelers Insurance 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 ......
-
Canal Ins. Co. v. Reed
...the type of order granting affirmative relief that falls within the meaning of the rule. Id. at 363; see U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Sloan, 410 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (order determining amount of uninsured motorist coverage under two insurance policies and entered on joint motion fo......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns
...holding, the district court aligned itself with the first and third 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 conf......