INTEGON CORPORATION, INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON INDEMNITY CORPORATION AND INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEAN A. GORDON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 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 reversed a class certification order because the trial court failed to separately state findings of fact as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1), and remanded for compliance with that requirement and ruling on standing.
A class certification order must separately state the findings of fact upon which the determination is based, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1).
[1] A class certification order must separately state the findings of fact upon which the determination is based to permit meaningful appellate review.
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 intelligenceIntegon Corporation and related insurance companies appealed an interlocutory order granting Dean Gordon's motion for class certification on behalf of…
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 Findings Of Fact Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
' PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an interlocutory order granting appellee’s motion for class certification. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const, (granting to district courts of appeal jurisdiction to “review interlocutory orders ... to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court”); Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) (providing for appeal to the district courts of appeal of non-final orders that “determine ... that a class should be certified”). Because the order fails to “separately state the findings of fact ... upon which the determination [wa]s based” as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1), we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court comply with that provision. See, e.g., Seminole County v. Tivoli Orlando Assocs., Ltd., 920 So. 2d 818, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Ford Motor Co. v. Morris, 904 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); City of Tampa v. McAfee, 896 So. 2d 943, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). On remand, the trial court shall also rule on appellants’ contention that appellee lacks standing, and provide an explanation of the rationale on which its decision is based, to permit intelligent review of the determination.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Angelo v. Parker, 275 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
-
Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Grosso, 110 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…conclusions of law. Further, it did not specify which section of rule 1.220(b) the certification was based. Certifying a class by an order that does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law is reversible error. Integon Corp. v. Gordon, 953 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“Because the order fail[ed] to ‘separately state the findings of fact ... upon which the determination [wa]s based’ as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1), [the First District] reverse[d] and remand[ed] with…
Authorities Cited
- Seminole Cnty. v. Tivoli Orlando Assocs. Ltd., 920 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- City OF Tampa v. McAFEE, 896 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Morris, 904 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)