AMERICAN TELEVISION AND COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
American Television and Communication Corporation appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case, claiming it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court had not made a determination that the company was not entitled to immunity as a matter of law, but rather had identified unresolved factual issues.
No. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court did not determine that the appellant was not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law. Instead, the trial court identified unresolved factual issues that were determinative of whether the appellant was entitled to immunity, which does not fall within the jurisdictional exception for interlocutory appeals.
[1] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order denying a motion for summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity when the trial court's deni…
[2] Appellate review of nonfinal orders is authorized when a trial court determines that a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law.
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“Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) authorizes appellate review of nonfinal orders which determine 'that a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law.'”
Establishes the narrow jurisdictional basis for appealing denials of summary judgment on immunity grounds
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth H. Whetstone, employed by appellant American Television and Communication Corporation, was electrocuted and seriously injured while removing c…
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 Non-Final Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, American Television and Communication Corporation, challenges the trial court’s nonfinal order which denied the motion for summary judgment the appellant had filed against the appellee, Florida Power Corporation, a Florida corporation. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff in the trial court, Kenneth H. Whetstone, filed a suit for damages against the appellee alleging that during the course of his employment with the appellant, he was electrocuted and seriously injured as a result of removing existing cable lines that were attached to a hazardous utility pole owned by the appellee. The appellee in turn filed a third party complaint against the appellant/third party defendant and another party, not a party to this appeal, alleging that the third party defendants were responsible for Mr. Whetstone’s injuries under various legal theories. The appellant subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment alleging, among other things, that the appellee’s claims against the appellant were barred by workers’ compensation immunity afforded under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1993).
The trial court denied the motion and found that there were material issues of fact remaining such as who was at fault for Mr. Whetstone’s injuries. The appellant subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal contending that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment since it was entitled to immunity for damages suffered by Mr. Whetstone under the workers’ compensation act.
We dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) authorizes appellate review of nonfinal orders which determine “that a party is not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as a matter of law.” In the instant case, the record does not indicate that the trial court was making a determination that the appellant was not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as a matter of law. See Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Miller, 674 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). See also Integrity Homes of Cent Florida, Inc. v. Goldy, 672 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
The trial court specifically recited unresolved issues of fact which were determinative as to whether or not the appellant was entitled to immunity under the statute.
Accordingly, we dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hastings v. Demming, 682 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…as a matter of law.” 674 So. 2d at 179. Thus, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the rule. Even more recently, we arrived at the same conclusion in American Television and Communication Corporation v. Florida Power Corporation, 679 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In citing to Miller, we dismissed an appeal taken under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) for lack of jurisdiction because, as in Miller, the record did not indicate that the trial court made a determination that the appellant was not enti…
-
Stucki v. Hopkins, 691 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…follows two more recent cases from the Second District. See Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Miller, 674 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 683 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1996); American Television and Communication Corporation v. Florida Power Corporation, 679 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We agree with Judge Lazzara’s interpretation of rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) that a trial court’s denial of a party’s motion for summary judgment, because there are unre-unredisputed issues of material fact, which will determine wheth…
-
Walton Dodge Chrysler-Plymouth Jeep & Eagle, Inc. v. H.C. Hodges Cash & Carry, Inc., 679 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…are not “so ‘crystallized,’ conclusive, and compelling as to leave nothing for the court’s determination but a question of law.” Hastings, — So. 2d at -, 21 Fla. L. Weekly at 1757. American Television and Communication Corp. v. Florida Power Corp., 679 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., v. Miller, 674 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Contra Breakers Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gloger, 646 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). One fact on which the majority seems to rely is clear on this record: Like hi…
Authorities Cited
- Pizza HUT OF Am., Inc. v. Miller, 674 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Ancil C. Odom v. State, 672 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 672 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)