NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD HARRICK, 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.
The court held that an order determining only an insurer's duty to defend, without determining coverage, is not an appealable non-final order under Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(n).
Nationwide appealed a non-final order where the trial court granted partial summary judgment, finding a duty to defend but deferring the coverage issu…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nationwide has taken an appeal from a non-final order entered in an action in which the appellee insured sought declaratory relief as to whether Nationwide had a duty to defend and coverage in another lawsuit. The trial court granted the insured’s motion for partial summary judgment and held that Nationwide had a duty to defend, but denied the insured’s motion as to coverage because that issue could not be determined until factual issues were resolved in the underlying action.
The appellee insured has moved to dismiss on the ground that an order' determining only a duty to defend (and not coverage) is not appealable. Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(n), entitled “Insurance Coverage Appeals,” allows appeals from non-final orders “that determine the existence or nonexistence of insurance coverage in cases in which a claim has been made against an insured.” Because this order only determines that the insurer has a duty to defend, and does not determine coverage, this order is not appealable at this time.1 Appeal dismissed.
KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . We note that before rule 9.110(n) was established, the second district construed Canal Ins. Co. v. Reed, 666 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1996) as allowing an appeal of an order requiring an insurer to defend. Aetna Commercial Ins. v. American Signs, 687 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Canal Ins. Co. v. Reed, 666 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1996)
- Rosero v. State, 687 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- AETNA Commercial Ins. Co. v. Am. Sign Co. & Herbert Hastings, 687 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)