FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
FRANK COPELAND AND MARILYN COPELAND, RESPONDENTS
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 the petition for writ of certiorari should be dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
Federated National Insurance Company petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash an order denying its motion to dismiss a claim against it. The 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 Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Federated National Insurance Company petitions for a writ of certiorari, asking this court to quash the trial court’s order denying its motion to dismiss count II of Frank and Marilyn Copeland’s claim against Federated for violation of section 627.707, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Feder ated has failed to show that it will suffer material injury that cannot 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 the trial court compels discovery of privileged or protected documents. See McGarrah v. Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc., 889 So. 2d 923, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Orders granting discovery ... are amenable to certiorari review because appeal after a final judgment in a case where discovery was improperly granted seldom provides adequate redress.”).
Petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed without prejudice.
ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. . Section 627.707 sets forth specific minimum standards for investigating sinkhole claims.
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)…dismiss. That said, however, an appellate court does not generally have certiorari 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…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 940 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…nature of the action). Accordingly, we 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 Federated Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 932 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Progressive Consumers, 869 So. 2d at 622. GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur. . We realize this fact clashes with Brewer's allegation in her motion for summary judgment that "[a]t no time did (State Farm) contact Ms. Brewer’s…
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Trena McGARRAH v. Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc., 889 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Progressive Consumers Ins. Co. v. DAY, 869 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Lilley v. State, 869 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)