STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES JENKINS, RESPONDENT
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.
State Farm sought certiorari review of a circuit court order affirming a county court judgment awarding PIP chiropractic benefits to Jenkins. The court denied the petition, finding that the claim was already overdue when State Farm requested an examination under oath, allowing Jenkins to proceed with his lawsuit.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. By the time State Farm requested the examination under oath on June 4, the claim filed on April 29 was already overdue under the thirty-day provision of section 627.786(4)(b), Florida Statutes, allowing Jenkins to initiate a lawsuit to have the case determined on the merits.
[1] An appellate court lacks certiorari jurisdiction to review a trial court's findings of fact when such findings were not raised in the appeal to the appellate court.
[2] A claimant is free to initiate a lawsuit to recover unpaid benefits when the insurer's claim deadline has already passed before the insurer requests an examination under…
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“This court has no certiorari jurisdiction to review the county court's findings of fact.”
Establishes the court's jurisdictional limitation in reviewing factual findings not raised in the lower appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJenkins filed a PIP claim for chiropractic benefits on April 29, 1996. On June 4, 1996, State Farm requested that Jenkins submit to an examination und…
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 Findings Of Fact Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity. The order affirmed a county court final judgment, ruling on a claim under the PIP statute. Part of that judgment contained the finding of fact that respondent Charles Jenkins filed a claim for chiropractic benefits on April 29, 1996-Although State Farm disagrees with that finding in its petition to this court, State Farm did not seek review of the trial court’s factual findings in its appeal to the circuit court. This court has no certiorari jurisdiction to review the county court’s findings of fact. See Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla.1995).
On June 4, 1996, State Farm notified Jenkins of its request that he submit to an examination under oath, pursuant to the terms of the policy. Jenkins did not appear at a scheduled examination.
Jenkins filed suit in the county court to recover unpaid benefits. The trial judge entered a judgment in his favor based on an ambiguity in the policy.
The circuit court affirmed on different grounds. Without reaching the legal analysis in the circuit court opinion, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari. By the time State Farm requested an examination under oath on June 4, the claim filed on April 29 was already overdue under the thirty day provision of section 627.786(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1999). Respondent was therefore “free to initiate a lawsuit to have the case determined on the merits.” Amador v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 748 So. 2d 807, 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), rev. denied, No. SC00-461, 767 So. 2d 464 (Fla. June 26, 2000); see Martinez v. Fortune Ins. Co., 684 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). State Farm also argues that the trial court erred by entering final judgment against it without allowing it to pursue any defenses it might have had to the claim. However, this issue was not raised in the appeal to the circuit court. State Farm’s brief in the circuit court argued only that the county judge had misinterpreted the policy and the statute.
In this case there was no “violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Haines City, 658 So. 2d at 528 (quoting Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95-96 (Fla.1983)).
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
DELL, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
January v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 838 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…s, as to those claims under the policy made by January that were not paid by State Farm within thirty days, January’s claim was mature and he was entitled to seek a judicial determination of his rights. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 767 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). There is no arguable breach of [*608] contract by him that we can identify prior to March 23 that would excuse payment of the claim and statutory penalties once coverage is established. Obviously, if there is no coverage, there…
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Amador v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 748 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Martinez v. Fortune Ins. Co., 684 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)