CELTIC INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
DIGESTIVE MEDICINE HISTOLOGY LAB
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.
Celtic Insurance Company petitioned for writs of certiorari to review the trial court's denial of its motion to consolidate 15 separate small claims cases involving different patients, policies, and medical necessity allegations. The appellate court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction, finding the alleged harm of inefficiency and additional cost insufficient for certiorari review, and alternatively would have denied the petition on the merits because consolidation under Florida Rule 1.270(a) is discretionary, not mandatory.
The court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction because the alleged harm of inefficiency and additional cost is insufficient to merit certiorari review. Additionally, the court held that even on the merits, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Rule 1.270(a) consolidation is discretionary and the cases involve different patients, allegations, policies, and exigencies that do not mandate consolidation.
[1] Irreparable harm, such as increased cost or decreased efficiency, is insufficient to merit certiorari review.
[2] Consolidation of actions involving common questions of law or fact is discretionary, not mandatory.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”
Rule 1.270(a) establishing that consolidation is discretionary, not mandatory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCeltic Insurance Company sought consolidation of 15 pending small claims cases in trial court. The cases allegedly involved different patients, differ…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Lower Court Case Numbers: 2019-010221-SP-23, 2019-010227-SP-23, 2019-010230-SP-23, 2019-010231-SP-23, 2019- 010233-SP-23, 2019-012172-SP-23, 2019-012193-SP-23, 2019-012204-SP-23, 2019-012210- SP-23, 2019-012223-SP-23, 2019-012486-SP-23, 2019-012487-SP-23, 2019-012489-SP-23, 2019-012501-SP-23, 2019-012502-SP-23 [*1] We dismiss these petitions for writ of certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. We find that the irreparable harm alleged – that maintaining independent actions will result in less efficiency and additional cost – is insufficient to merit certiorari review. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012).
Even if we reached the merits, we would deny this petition. Rule 1.270(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:
(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
(emphasis added) The rule is discretionary, not mandatory. The 15 small claims cases pending in the trial courts allegedly involve different patients, different allegations of medical necessity, different policies and different exigencies justifying out-of-network insurance claims. The trial court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate. While the cases have issues in common, the "mere possibility of different juries arriving at a different conclusion on a fact common to two lawsuits does not alone mandate consolidation." See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Bonham, 886 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). See N 2 The actions are in their infancy below. No discovery has been done and the Defendant has not yet answered the complaints.
[*2] also Commercial Carriers Corp. v. Kelly, 920 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (even where separate actions arise out of the same accident, consolidation is not mandated).
Finally, Respondents move for attorneys' fees.³ Pursuant to Section 768.79, Florida Statutes, we provisionally grant entitlement to attorneys' fees, conditioned upon the trial court determining the sufficiency of the proposal for settlement and on the Respondents prevailing below.
Petition dismissed.
TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA, JJ., CONCUR. COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL
OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY
N 3 We do not opine on whether the Respondents could be entitled to attorney's fees under sections 627.428(1) or 641.28, Florida Statutes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. SAN Perdido Ass'n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012)
- Commercial Carriers Corp. v. Kester Ray Kelley, Jr., 920 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)