DARWIN L. FETTERS, ET UX, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court dismissed an appeal from a declaratory judgment order determining that Alabama law applied to an uninsured motorist insurance claim and establishing a $250,000 coverage limit, holding that the order was not final and appealable because the underlying claim on the policy remained to be adjudicated.
The order is not final and appealable because the question of coverage is not separate and distinct from Fetters' underlying claim on the policy but is an inseparable part of it, and Fetters' basic claim has not yet been adjudicated.
[1] An order that adjudicates a counterclaim for declaratory judgment regarding insurance coverage is not a final, appealable order if the underlying claim on the policy has…
[2] A judicial order must fully resolve all issues between the parties to be considered a final and appealable order, unless it adjudicates a separate and distinct cause of a…
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“An order, to be appealable as final, must constitute an end to the judicial labor in the cause and there must remain nothing further to be done by the court to effect a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected.”
Establishes the legal standard for finality of appealable orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDarwin L. Fetters, a Florida resident, was injured in an Alabama automobile collision with an uninsured motorist while driving his employer's truck. H…
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 Separate And Distinct Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Appellant Darwin L. Fetters, a resident of Florida, was driving one of his employer’s trucks in Alabama when he was injured in a collision with an uninsured motorist. Fetters brought this action against his employer’s insurer, appellee United States Fire Insurance Company, on the uninsured motorist coverage provision of a policy covering the employer’s fleet of trucks. Appel-lee insurer denied the circumstances of the Alabama accident and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment as to whether the claim was governed by the law of Alabama or Florida and as to the maximum policy limit provision applicable to appellee’s claim. From an order holding the law of Alabama applied, Fetters appeals and, from a ruling that the applicable uninsured motorist coverage limit was $250,000 rather than $10,000, the insurer cross-appeals.
An order, to be appealable as final, must constitute an end to the judicial labor in the cause and there must remain nothing further to be done by the court to effect a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected. S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974). There is an exception where an order finally adjudicates a separate and distinct cause of action which is not interdependent with other claims yet to be resolved. Id. at 99; Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974).
Although the order here decides two issues and completely adjudicates the insurer’s counterclaim, that issue of coverage is not separate and distinct from Fetters’ claim on the policy but is an inseparable part of it. Fetters’ basic claim has not yet been adjudicated. In similar cases such orders have been held to be non-final and non-appealable. Brannon v. Johnston, 83 So. 2d 779 (Fla.1955) (order finding the defendant negligent and leaving only the issue of damages to be tried was not appealable); Hyde v. Maine, 324 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (pre-trial order determining limits of liability coverage non-appealable); Shealy v. Clark Construction Company of Ocala, Inc., 323 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (order denying cross-claim for indemnity between co-defendants was non-final).
The appeal is therefore sua sponte
DISMISSED.
ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ONE Thousand Oaks, Inc. v. Dade Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 417 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…llate Procedure 9.110 nor does such an order of dismissal constitute a non-final order appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974); Fetters v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 399 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Finney v. Wonder Development Corp., 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); North Indiaiantic Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Bogue, 390 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Robertson v. Florida Rock & Tank Lines, Inc., 385 So. 2d 138 (Fl…
-
Pace v. Perry, 511 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ith the counterclaim that remains for adjudication, which seeks the identical relief afforded appellant in the earlier vacated judgment. See S.L.T. Warehouse Company v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974); Fetters v. United States Fire Insurance Company, 399 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The appeal is, therefore, DISMISSED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.…
-
Dennis v. Pavlakos, 464 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…(Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 451 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1984). An order dismissing a compulsory counterclaim is a non-final, non-appealable order. S.L.T. Warehouse v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974); Fetters v. United States Fire Insurance Company, 399 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We therefore dismiss the appeal from that portion of the order dismissing the counterclaims, without prejudice to the right of appellants to present this issue upon an appeal from a final judgment in this cause. AFFIRMED in pa…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Brannon v. Johnston, 83 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1955)
- Nuby Shealy v. Clark Constr. Co. OF Ocala, Inc., 323 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Jerry Wayne Hyde & the Manchester Ins. & Indem. Co. v. Maine, 324 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)