HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
v.
PATRICK FRASER AND ALICE JACOBS,
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.
A partial summary judgment disposing of only a declaratory judgment count is not appealable when other interrelated claims based on the same facts remain pending before the trial court, as such claims are not separate and distinct causes of action under Rule 9.110(k).
[1] A partial summary judgment disposing of less than all claims in an action is not appealable as a final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k) unless it…
[2] When multiple counts in a complaint rely on the same operative facts and involve the same parties, the counts are interdependent and interrelated, precluding piecemeal ap…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A partial final judgment, other than one that disposes of an entire case as to any party, is one that disposes of a separate and distinct cause of action that is not interdependent with other pleaded claims.”
This establishes the statutory standard under Rule 9.110(k) for determining whether a partial judgment is appealable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHomeowners Choice denied or failed to timely pay or deny an insurance claim filed by Patrick Fraser and Alice Jacobs. The insureds filed suit assertin…
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 Fraudulent Inducement cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 7, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-0866 Lower Tribunal No. 18-8930 ________________
Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant,
vs.
Patrick Fraser and Alice Jacobs, Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge.
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Mark D. Tinker (Tampa), for appellant.
Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellees.
Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
On Motion to Dismiss
BOKOR, J.
2 Homeowners Choice seeks review of a declaratory decree and related order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k). However, the decree and order on appeal resolve, at most, the declaratory judgment count asserted by the insureds, but leave unresolved the insureds’ claims for fraud in the inducement and breach of contract. In reviewing the operative complaint, the decree and order on appeal, the plain language of Rule 9.110(k), and the body of caselaw applying such rule, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider this premature, piecemeal appeal. To determine the appealability of a partial summary judgment order disposing of less than the entire action, we first determine the scope of the orders on appeal and apply Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k), the relevant rule governing the appeal of nonfinal orders. The operative complaint filed by the insureds against Homeowners Choice asserts three counts: one for declaratory judgment, one for fraud in the inducement, and one for breach of contract. All three counts rely on the same operative set of facts. The decree Homeowners Choice seeks to appeal answers two discrete questions in the affirmative: (1) that Homeowners Choice was required to pay or deny the insureds’ claim within 90 days after Homeowners Choice received notice of the claim pursuant to section 627.70131, Florida
3 Statutes; and (2) that the failure of Homeowners Choice to pay or deny the claim within 90 days constitutes a violation of Florida law and a breach of the subject insurance contract. The plain language of Rule 9.110(k), entitled “Review of Partial Final Judgments,” shows that this appeal isn’t ripe. The rule explains that “[a] partial final judgment, other than one that disposes of an entire case as to any party, is one that disposes of a separate and distinct cause of action that is not interdependent with other pleaded claims.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k) (emphasis added). The decree and related order on appeal resolve only the declaratory judgment count, leaving other related counts relying on the same factual nexus unresolved.1 The resolution of the pending breach of contract claim would rely, at least in part, on the findings made in the decree and order on appeal. See Libman v. Fla. Wellness & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 260 So. 3d 515, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“It is well-established that ‘[p]iecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated and involve the
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Stathopoulos, 113 So. 3d 957, 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Dahly v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 876 So. 2d 1245, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). Unsurprisingly, we come to the same conclusion in applying these factors as we do in reading the plain language of the statute. As to the first factor, the “cause of action” disposed of by the “partial summary judgment” could not be maintained independently of the other remaining causes of action. The legal and declaratory counts all rely on the same operative facts and couldn’t be maintained independently of each other. The decree noted that “[t]he remaining issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint remain pending before this court, including issues that may be interrelated with the issues resolved by this Decree.” (emphasis added). As to the second factor, we note that all claims are between the same parties. The resolution of the declaratory judgment through the partial
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Stathopoulos, 113 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 122 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Flora-Tech Plantscapes, Inc., 225 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Powell v. State, 174 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Nooi KOE v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 225 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)