AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
NICHOLAS C. EVANOFF, 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.
Petitioner insurance company sought a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's order overruling its objections to respondent's broad Requests for Admissions. The court denied the petition, holding that the trial court's interlocutory order did not constitute fundamental error warranting extraordinary relief, and that petitioner could address the issue on appeal from final judgment.
The trial court did not commit fundamental error. Certiorari is available only for jurisdictional excess or interlocutory orders that do not conform to essential legal requirements and may cause material injury. Procedural rulings on discovery matters, including objections to requests for admissions, are not subject to certiorari review and should be addressed on appeal from final judgment.
“Certiorari is a discretionary writ issued only where the trial court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or where the interlocutory order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate.”
Establishes the restrictive standard for granting certiorari 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 intelligenceRespondent brought an action against petitioner insurance company, claiming respondent was a judgment creditor of George L. Mims and that petitioner w…
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 Objections To Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, defendant below, filed its petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a lower court order overruling petitioner’s objections to Requests for Admissions submitted by respondent.
Respondent brought an action against petitioner insurance company alleging that he was a judgment creditor of one George L. Mims. The complaint alleged that petitioner was under a duty to pay the amount of the judgment pursuant to a contract of insurance between petitioner and Mims. Respondent then filed and served upon petitioner thirty-seven Requests for Admissions pursuant to Rule 1.30, Fla.R.Civ.P., 30 F.S. A. Petitioner filed timely objection to these requests on the grounds that they were “ * * * irrelevant and immaterial and improper in whole in that the said request for admissions covers the whole field of evidence and seeks to elicit admissions going to the heart of the entire case.” The trial court overruled the objection, and petitioner sought writ of certiorari from this Court.
Certiorari is a discretionary writ issued only where the trial court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or where the interlocutory order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate. Kauffman v. King, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 24; Leithauser v. Harrison, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 95. In Girten v. Bouvier, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 745, this court stated, at page 748:
“ * * * It is thus seen that power to review an intermediate order does not comprehend errors by the trial court in the making of rulings on the pleadings * * * nor as to the law applicable to the facts; neither will an appellate court review alleged errors in admitting or rejecting evidence or in making of rulings on other matters of procedure, even though the error might be reversible on appeal. Nonfundamental errors of judgment or of procedure cannot, therefore, become the subject of a proceeding such as this.”
We cannot agree with petitioner that the instant case comes within the category of fundamental error and the trial court’s order will cause petitioner material injury. Under the rule, petitioner may qualify or otherwise explain its answers; and in view of this fact, we fail to see how petitioner will be materially injured by being required to respond to the requests.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied without prejudice to petitioner’s raising the issue upon appeal from final judgment.
ALLEN, C. J., and DOWNEY, JAMES-C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulf Cities GAS Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…rror is fundamental error. Non-fundamental errors of procedure cannot be the subject of a proceeding for writ of cer-tiorari even though the error might be reversible on appeal. American Employers’ Insurance Company v. Evanoff, Fla. [*252] App.1966, 181 So. 2d 695; and Girten v. Bouvier, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 745. We do not feel that the error alleged here is fundamental error or that the trial court’s order will cause petitioner material injury. It should be noted that petitioner has an adequate remedy o…
Authorities Cited
- Kauffman v. Annabel King, 89 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1956)
- Girten v. Bouvier, 155 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)