DNA CENTER FOR NEUROLOGY AND REHABILITATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., 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 circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a personal injury protection benefits claim for damages under $15,000, which must be brought in county court, so summary judgment is reversed and the case remanded for transfer.
A circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a suit for nonpayment of personal injury protection benefits when damages are less than $15,000, as such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of county courts.
[1] A suit for damages due to nonpayment of personal injury protection benefits falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of county courts when the amount in controversy does n…
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 intelligenceDNA Center for Neurology and Rehabilitation filed an amended complaint in circuit court seeking damages greater than $500 but less than $5,000 for non…
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 County Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
DNA Center for Neurology and Rehabilitation (hereinafter “DNA”) challenges the entry of summary judgment in favor of Progressive American Insurance Co. The propriety of the summary judgment will not be addressed because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. Although neither party raised this issue before the trial court, or on appeal, this does not prevent us from addressing it. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Daystar Farms, Inc., 803 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte by an appellate court); see also 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So.2d 1297, 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created by agreement, waiver, inadvertence, or a court’s exercise of power).
DNA’s amended complaint alleged it was seeking damages greater than $500, but less than $5000. The exhibits attached to the amended complaint appear to indicate the damages sought were less than $500. Instead of filing its amended complaint in county court, DNA filed it in circuit court. However, county courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions in law not exceeding $15,000, unless the action is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court. § 34.01(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). A suit for damages due to nonpayment of personal injury protection benefits is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court. Consequently, the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over DNA’s suit and the summary judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for transfer to the county court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vitaly Alekseyev and Irina Alekseyev v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 189 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…diction, a defect in the trial court’s jurisdiction may bé raised sua sponte for the first time on appeal. See Ruffin v. Kingswood E. Condo. Ass’n, 719 So. 2d 951, 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); DNA Ctr. for Neurology & Rehab. v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 13 So. 3d 74, 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). See also Snider v. Snider, 686 So. 2d 802, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon a court by a constitution or statute, and cannot be created by waiver, acquiescence or agreement of the parti…
-
1ST Priority Restoration, Inc. v. Diya Salame, 129 So. 3d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ing the $4,898.87 invoice amount and interest. The circuit court correctly determined that the remaining amount in controversy warranted a transfer of the case to the county court. DNA Ctr. for Neurology & Rehabilitation v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 13 So. 3d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). . The notice of appeal was filed December 6, 2012. . Scheel v. Advance Mktg. Consultants, Inc., 277 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1973) (order of transfer by circuit court to court of record held non-final and non-appealable, with review to…
-
Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples DE v. Epraim Cintron, 44 So. 3d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…ld not have been, made in good faith. As a result, the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the final judgment and the matter should have been transferred to the county court. See DNA Ctr. for Neurology & Rehab. v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 13 So. 3d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). This view is hardly revolutionary. As our supreme court said in Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Maxey, 64 Fla. 487, 60 So. 353, 354 (1912), “[t]he amount of damages stated in the ad damnum clause of the declaration does not determi…
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
- 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Dep't OF Revenue v. Daystar Farms, Inc., 803 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)