AMCON BUILDERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MANUEL PARDO, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 granted the motion to dismiss the appeal because the trial court's order denying summary judgment on workers' compensation immunity lacked the required designation that the immunity was not available as a matter of law.
Amcon Builders, Inc. (employer) moved for summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity, which the trial court denied. Amcon appealed this …
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 Worker'S Compensation Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Appellee, Manuel Pardo (“Pardo”), moves to dismiss the appeal of a non-final order denying the employer’s, Amcon Builders, Inc., motion for summary judgment based on workers’ compensation immunity. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the motion to dismiss.
The trial court’s order below makes no determination on the issue of workers’ compensation immunity. Instead, the order simply denies a motion for summary judgment based on insufficient evidence. The trial court’s order, therefore, “lacked the required designation ‘that, as a matter of law, [the claimant] was not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity,’ which makes it appealable as a non-final order.” Coastal Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Priegues, 22 So.3d 148, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). See also Fla. RApp. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v); *1255 Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812, 821-22 (Fla.2004) (“[Njonfi-nal orders denying summary judgment on a claim of workers’ compensation immunity are not appealable unless the trial court order specifically states that, as a matter of law, such a defense is not available to a party.” (quoting Hastings v. Demming, 694 So.2d 718, 720 (Fla.1997)).
Because the order denying the motion for summary judgment is neither renewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 as a non-final order nor under the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2), we grant Par-do’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Pozos, 242 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Rafaela Sosa, 215 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
Authorities Cited
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)
- Hastings v. Demming, 694 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 1997)
- Coastal Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Bertilia Priegues, 22 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)