FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA SCOTT AND EXPEDITIONS UNLIMITED, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Fidelity & Casualty appealed a non-final workers' compensation order finding its insurance policy was in full force on the date of an alleged accident. The court held that interlocutory orders determining insurance coverage in workers' compensation cases are appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), and therefore has jurisdiction to review the deputy commissioner's order.
The court held that it has jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in workers' compensation cases under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3), and that the subject order determining insurance coverage is appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
[1] Interlocutory orders of deputy commissioners in workers' compensation cases are reviewable by the District Courts of Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.13…
[2] A non-final order determining the issue of insurance coverage in favor of the party seeking affirmative relief is an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appe…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(B) provides that the several District Courts of Appeal have appeal jurisdiction to review "non-final orders of lower tribunals as prescribed by Rule 9.130(a)(3)."”
Establishes the jurisdictional basis for appellate review of interlocutory orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFidelity & Casualty Company issued an insurance policy to cover workers' compensation. A deputy commissioner issued a non-final order finding that the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(C)(Iv) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a non-final order of the deputy commissioner finding that the insurance policy issued by appellant was in full force and effect on June 2, 1978, the date of the alleged accident affording workers’ compensation to the claimant, appellee Scott. No other outstanding issues were determined by the order, nor were any benefits awarded. By motion to dismiss the appeal, appellee Scott argues that this court has no jurisdiction, under statute or appellate rule, to review the subject interlocutory order. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree.
While appellate procedure in workers’ compensation cases is ordinarily governed by the Workers’ Compensation Rules of Procedure, these rules provide little guidance regarding which interlocutory orders of the deputy commissioners, if any, are appealable to this court. However, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(B) provides that the several District Courts of Appeal have appeal jurisdiction to review “non-final orders of lower tribunals as prescribed by Rule 9.130(a)(3).” We believe that hearings before the deputy commissioners are “lower tribunals within the contemplation of Rule 9.030(b)(1)(B). Therefore, we hold that appeals from interlocutory orders in workers’ compensation are governed by the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3).
Turning to the case at hand, we find that the subject order, which determines the issue of insurance coverage in favor of appellee Scott (the party seeking affirmative relief) is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). See, York Insurance Co. v. Becker, 364 So. 2d 858 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Kraver, 364 So. 2d 1259 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). But cf. Cosmopolitan Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lozano, IRC Order 2-3688 (Feb. 7, 1979), dismissing (as interlocutory and not appealable under the W.C.R.P.) an appeal from an order on compensability without award of benefits, cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1979); and Famous Market Place v. Meier, IRC Order 2-3875 (Aug. 1, 1979). In so ruling, we express no opinion as to the merits of the appeal.
Accordingly, appellee Scott’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal is hereby denied.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., ERVIN and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G.A. v. State, 391 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…1977) and Sections 39.09(2)(e) and 39.-14(1), Fla.Stats. (1978 Supp.), rather than by Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b). See Malyn v. Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Association, 384 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Fidelity and Casualty Co. of N. Y. v. Scott, 386 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Section 39.09(2)(e) provides that a waiver order shall be reviewable pursuant to Section 39.14, Fla.Stat., and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Section 39.-14(1), Fla.Stat., states: Any child, and any parent or legal…
Authorities Cited
- York Ins. Co. v. Becker, 364 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kraver, 364 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)