LAWYERS TITLE INS. CORP.
v.
REITZES
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 appellate court denied motions to vacate its prior opinion enforcing a forum selection clause in an insurance policy, despite the parties' settlement. The court found the opinion had precedential value due to recurring similar issues and rejected the appellee's alternative argument that additional evidence was needed to establish the insured's address.
The court denied both motions, finding the opinion had precedential value despite mootness because similar issues were likely to recur, and rejecting the alternative argument that additional evidence was required, holding that the appellee could have submitted evidence of an updated address but failed to do so.
[1] A court may decline to vacate a prior opinion if the issues presented have precedential value, even if the underlying case has been settled and is otherwise moot.
[2] A joint motion to vacate a court's opinion and dismiss an appeal may be denied if the court finds the opinion has precedential value.
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“a moot appeal is generally subject to dismissal. See, e.g., Dep't of Health v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., 259 So. 3d 247, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). However, this case also provides for three exceptions to the general rule, including where "the issues are likely to recur."”
Establishes the mootness doctrine and its exception for recurring issues, which the court applied to justify maintaining the opinion despite settlement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties settled their dispute in May 2019 with fees and costs resolved by August 15, 2019, but did not inform the appellate court until after it i…
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 Precedential Value cases and more on FLexlaw
a/a/o Alessandra Parker,
Appellee.
/
ORDER DENYING APPELLEE’S MOTION TO VACATE OR ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND THE PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO VACATE PER CURIAM OPINION
THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration of Appellee’s Motion to Vacate or Alternative Motion for Rehearing and the Parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate Per Curiam Opinion, both filed on October 3, 2019. The Court finds as follows:
On September 18, 2019, the Court issued its Opinion, which treated Appellant’s appeal as a writ of certiorari and granted the writ concluding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by refusing to enforce a valid, mandatory forum selection clause in the relevant insurance policy. In the instant Motions, Appellee requests, joined by Appellant, that the Court vacate its Opinion and dismiss the appeal because the parties had previously reached a settlement in May of 2019 pending determinations regarding fees and costs which were apparently resolved by August 15, 2019.1 The parties claim that as a result of the settlement, the appeal is moot and subject to dismissal, citing to case law holding that a moot appeal is generally subject to dismissal. See, e.g., Dep’t of Health v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., 259 So. 3d 247, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). However, this case also provides for three exceptions to the general rule, including where “the issues are likely to recur.” Id. Despite the parties’ claim that the opinion of September 18 “no longer serves any purpose” we believe that the Opinion as rendered has precedential value. This Court has received numerous similar interlocutory appeals or petitions for writ of certiorari regarding venue transfer decisions made in the county court on the issues presented in this case.
In the alternative, Appellee contends, this time not joined by Appellant, that this Court overlooked a critical fact. Appellee argues that even if the address contained in the insurance policy is sufficient to establish the Insured’s address at the time the policy was issued, it is insufficient to establish the Insured’s address at the time of the accident without further “evidence that the address had not been updated before the accident.” This argument was already made by Appellee and considered by this Court. See Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 641 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). As we concluded, and Appellee accepts “for the purposes of this motion,” the address in the policy was not hearsay and Insured was required to update her address during the effective period of the policy,
On the other hand, Appellee could have submitted evidence that Insured had, in fact, updated her address, and that for some reason the policy submitted to the court was outdated or no longer accurate in this respect. However, as noted in the Opinion, Appellee did not submit any evidence to refute Appellant’s evidence regarding Insured’s address. We do not agree with Appellee’s contention that Appellant was required to submit additional evidence, in the first instance, to establish that Insured had not updated her insurance policy.
Accordingly, this Court declines to withdraw its Opinion.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate Per Curiam Opinion, filed October 3, 2019, is DENIED. Further, Appellee’s Motion to Vacate or Alternative Motion for Rehearing, filed October 3, 2019, is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this _____ day of _____________, 2019.
BOB LEBLANC
Presiding Circuit Judge
APTE and O’KANE, JJ., concur. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order has been furnished on this ____ day of ______________ 2019, to Rebecca O’Dell Townsend, Esq., Dutton Law Group, PA, P.O. Box 260697, Tampa, FL 33685 at [email protected]; Suzette M. Alfonso, Esq., Dutton Law Group, PA, P.O. Box 260697, Tampa, FL 33685 at [email protected]; Scott W. Dutton, Esq., Dutton Law Group, PA, P.O. Box 260697, Tampa, FL 33685 at [email protected]; Robert J. Hauser, Esq., Pankauski Hauser PLLC, 415 South Olive Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 at [email protected].
_ _____________________
Judicial Assistant