SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA MEDICAL CLINIC, P.A., RESPONDENT

Fla. 2d DCA | 2002-01-25
No. 2D01-2803
STRINGER, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
804 So. 2d 1280 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2002)

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.


Holding

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits of the petition for writ of certiorari because the petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.


Facts & Procedural History

Scottsdale Insurance Company petitioned for a writ of certiorari seeking to reverse a trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to its ins…

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.


Opinion of the Court
DAVIS, Judge.

DAVIS, Judge.

Scottsdale Insurance Company petitions this court for a writ of certiorari reversing the trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment to its insured, Florida Medical Clinic, Inc. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this petition, we dismiss the petition.

“In considering a petition for certiorari the reviewing court’s first duty is to assess whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the order creates irreparable harm. If the petitioner does not make such a showing, the court lacks jurisdiction and will dismiss the petition.” Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The court must make this determination before it addresses whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). “[A] petitioner must establish that an interlocutory order creates material harm irreparable by postjudgment appeal before this court has power to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of the law.” Id. at 649.

We conclude that Scottsdale has not met its burden to demonstrate that the challenged order creates irreparable harm. The trial court did not rule on the merits of Scottsdale’s affirmative defense of misrepresentation, but merely ruled Scottsdale’s notice of cancellation ineffective based on the policy’s terms. Because we can discern no injury that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal, we dismiss the petition for certiorari.

Dismissed.

STRINGER, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw