STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE CO.
v.
FLORIDA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS KANG & ASSOCIATES
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's order finding it and non-parties in contempt of court and awarding monetary sanctions to FEP in a personal injury protection insurance dispute. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that certiorari was inappropriate because any error could be corrected on direct appeal.
Certiorari review is inappropriate at this time because any error in the trial court's order may be readily corrected on direct appeal. Piecemeal review of nonfinal orders through certiorari would impede orderly administration of justice and should not be used to circumvent interlocutory appeal rules.
[1] Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent interlocutory appeal rules.
[2] Piecemeal review of non-final trial court orders will impede the orderly administration of justice and serve only to delay and harass.
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“any error that might be present in the trial court's Order on August 8, 2018 Hearing may be readily corrected on direct appeal”
Establishes the court's rationale for denying certiorari—that direct appeal is the appropriate remedy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA discovery dispute arose between State Farm and Florida Emergency Physicians Kang & Associates (FEP) in a PIP insurance case. The trial court entered…
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 Orderly Administration Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
Before MARQUES, BLACKWELL, and HARRIS, 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 Florida Emergency Physicians Kang & Associates (FEP), the Plaintiff below.1 P. 9.320. and that FEP 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)