PROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE CO., PETITIONER,
v.
BARBARA A. DAY, RESPONDENT
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 appellate court denied an insurance company's petition for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's order denying a motion to dismiss a bad faith claim. The court found that the insurance company failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be remedied on appeal.
The appellate court held that it should not grant the writ of certiorari because the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm that cannot be adequately remedied on appeal. The denial of a motion to dismiss is generally reviewable on plenary appeal.
[1] Certiorari review is generally not available for orders denying motions to dismiss or strike claims, as any harm can be adequately remedied on appeal.
[2] The time and expense of litigation do not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant certiorari review of an order denying a motion to dismiss.
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“Petitioner has failed to show that it will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be adequately remedied on appeal.”
This quote establishes the primary reason for denying the petition for certiorari.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProgressive Consumers Insurance Company (petitioner) sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court's order denying its motion to dismiss a bad fa…
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 Bad Faith Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Progressive Consumers Insurance Company petitions for a writ of certiorari, asking this Court to quash the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the respondent Barbara Day’s bad faith claim against petitioner. Petitioner has failed to show that it will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be adequately remedied on appeal. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099-1100 (Fla.1987) (stating that while it is often appropriate to review orders granting discovery by certiorari, motions to dismiss and motions to strike claims should not be reviewed by certiorari); Florida Fish & Wildlife Comm’n v. Pringle, 770 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (stating that the time and expense of litigation that would be dismissed if certiorari were granted does not constitute irreparable injury); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (denying certiorari review because the denial of a motion to dismiss a bad faith action can be adequately reviewed on plenary review); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998, 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (stating that taking certiorari review of a motion to dismiss a bad faith claim should not be treated differently than any other motion to dismiss because of the nature of the action).
We, therefore, deny the petition without prejudice to petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari in this Court if the trial court compels discovery of privileged or protected documents. See Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 800 So. 2d 689, 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (granting certiorari review of a motion to compel certain allegedly protected documents because the “erroneous production of [the privileged/protected] documents cannot be remedied on appeal”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Am. S. Home Ins. Co., 680 So. 2d 1114, 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (granting certiorari review where the trial court compelled the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine).
DENIED without prejudice.
WOLF, C.J., PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…rari jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to dismiss even when the cause of action is one for first-party bad faith. See Federated Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 932 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Progressive Consumers Ins. Co. v. Day, 869 So. 2d 621, 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998, 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (en banc). These bad faith cases follow the general…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 940 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…te remedy to review the alleged erroneous order. See Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Harrell, 891 So. 2d 1078, 1078-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Its concern appears to involve the time and expense of litigation. We find Progressive Consumers Insurance Co. v. Day, 869 So. 2d 621, 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and the cases cited therein, to be instructive: Petitioner ... ask[s] this Court to quash the ... order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the respondent's] ... bad faith claim.... Petitioner has failed to show that it…
-
Federated Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 932 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…t be adequately remedied on appeal. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099-1100 (Fla.1987) (stating that motions to dismiss and motions to strike claims should not be reviewed by certiorari); Progressive Consumers Ins. Co. v. Day, 869 So. 2d 621, 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (denying certiorari review of a trial court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to dismiss a bad faith claim). We, therefore, dismiss the petition without prejudice to Federated to seek a writ of certiorari in this court if th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 800 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Am. S. Home Ins. Co., 680 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Fla. Fish & Wildlife Comm'n v. Pringle, 770 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)