NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
MARY HARRELL, 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 court denied certiorari review of a non-final order denying summary judgment in a first-party bad faith insurance claim, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the order was a departure from essential legal requirements causing material injury.
A non-final order denying summary judgment in a first-party bad faith insurance case does not warrant certiorari review when the petitioner fails to show the order departs from essential legal requirements and causes material injury.
[1] A non-final order denying summary judgment in a first-party bad faith insurance claim is not reviewable by certiorari unless the petitioner demonstrates the order departs…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNational Life Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a circuit court's denial of its motion for summary judgment regarding Mary Harrell's claim…
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 Certiorari Review Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
National Life Insurance Company, the petitioner, seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s non-final order denying Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings regarding the claim made by Mary Elizabeth Harrell, the respondent, for statutory, first-party bad faith under section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner asserts that it discharged its obligation to “tender” payment of certain insurance benefits within the 60-day “cure” period in statutory subsection (3)(d), such that Respondent has no cause of action under the statute. Because Petitioner has not demonstrated that “the challenged order is a departure from the essential requirements of law that causes material injury, and ... leaves the petitioner with no other adequate remedy to review the alleged erroneous order,” Hartford Ins. Co. v. Mainstream Constr. Group, Inc., 864 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), we deny the petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(A) (providing for district court certiorari jurisdiction over “non-final orders of lower tribunals other than as prescribed by rule 9.130”); see Meyers v. Chartrand, 739 So. 2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“Interpleader contemplates the deposit of disputed funds into the registry of the court, or such other places as the parties agree. It is the deposit of the funds pendente lite which is the basis for relieving the stakeholder from further liability”).
PETITION DENIED.
ALLEN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 940 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…erial injury, and if the order leaves the petitioner with no other adequate remedy to review the alleged erroneous order.” OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 898 So. 2d 113, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); National Life Ins. Co. v. Harrell, 891 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Hartford Ins. Co. v. Mainstream Constr. Group, Inc., 864 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We have held that “coverage and liability issues [involving a contract of insurance] must be determined before a bad faith cause can…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Hartford Ins. Co. v. Mainstream Constr. Grp., Inc., 864 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Taylor v. State, 739 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)