STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE CO.
v.
ALTAMONTE SPRINGS DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC
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.
State Farm sought certiorari review of a trial court order imposing contempt sanctions and monetary damages in a discovery dispute with medical provider ASD. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that any potential error could be adequately addressed on direct appeal and that certiorari review was inappropriate for nonfinal interlocutory orders.
Certiorari review is inappropriate at this time because any error in the trial court's order may be readily corrected on direct appeal. The petition for certiorari is denied without prejudice to State Farm challenging the order on direct appeal.
[1] Certiorari review is inappropriate when any alleged error in a trial court's order can be corrected on direct appeal.
[2] Piecemeal review of nonfinal trial court orders will impede the orderly administration of justice and serve only to delay and harass.
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“any error that might be present in the trial court's Order on August 8, 2018 Hearing may be readily corrected on direct appeal”
Court's rationale for denying certiorari as inappropriate when direct appeal is available
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm and ASD became involved in a discovery dispute regarding a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance case. The trial court issued an Order…
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 Monetary Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
Before O’KANE, ADAMS, and APTE, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
In this PIP case, State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (State Farm), the Defendant below, timely seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s Order on August 8, 2018 Hearing, which was entered in favor of Altamonte Springs Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. (ASD), the Plaintiff below.1 P. 9.320. and that ASD was entitled to monetary sanctions.2 According to State Farm, the parties’ underlying discovery dispute has been resolved. State Farm urges that the court’s Order on August 8, 2018 Hearing was a departure from the essential requirements of law because it contained contempt rulings that were not announced by the court at the hearing and were otherwise unwarranted by the record. State Farm also urges that the court’s imposition of monetary sanctions and the stigma caused by the court’s contempt ruling result in irreparable harm. However, contrary to State Farm’s position, we determine that any error that might be present in the trial court’s Order on August 8, 2018 Hearing may be readily corrected on direct appeal. See Caruso v. Super Vision International, Inc., 845 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Therefore, we conclude that appellate review by certiorari at the present time is inappropriate. See Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004) (“Limited certiorari review is based upon the rationale that ‘piecemeal review of nonfinal trial court orders will impede the orderly administration of justice and serve only to delay and harass.’”) (quoting Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 1998)); Martin–Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 1987) (“[C]ommon law certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of nonfinal orders.”). As in Caruso, we deny State Farm’s petition “without a determination on the merits, since any error can be corrected on direct appeal.” 845 So. 2d at 948. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. State Farm’s petition for writ of certiorari, filed on October 11, 2018, is DENIED without prejudice to State Farm challenging the trial court’s Order on August 8, 2018 Hearing on direct appeal.
3. State Farm’s Motion to Travel Together and Notice of Related Cases, filed on November 21, 2018, is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this ______ day of ______________, 2019.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)
- Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc, 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998)
- Caruso v. Super Vision Int'l, Inc., 845 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)