JILL M. FORTIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL THIBAULT, DECEASED, PETITIONER,
v.
T & M LAWN CARE, INC., DOUGLAS W. CREWS AND FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 petitioner challenged a bifurcation order that would have separated claims for trial into discrete issues. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal quashed the bifurcation order, finding that the claims were inextricably interwoven and that bifurcation would cause inconvenience and prejudice rather than simplify the trial.
The court held that bifurcation of inextricably interwoven claims is improper and will be quashed where bifurcation will not simplify the trial but instead will cause inconvenience and prejudice to a party in presenting their case.
[1] An order bifurcating trial claims is reviewable by certiorari.
[2] Bifurcation of claims is improper when the claims are inextricably interwoven and bifurcation would cause inconvenience and prejudice.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“bifurcation will not simplify the trial; instead, it will cause inconvenience and prejudice to Fortin in presenting her case”
The court's statement of the standard for granting certiorari relief from a bifurcation order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJill M. Fortin, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul Thibault, filed a circuit court action against T & M Lawn Care, Inc., Douglas W. Crew…
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 Bifurcation Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Jill M. Fortin, the plaintiff in a circuit court action pending below, seeks certiorari review of a non-final order which granted the motion to bifurcate filed by respondent Federated National Insurance Co. (Federated), a defendant below. The order directed the, parties to notice for trial a single discrete issue only. We have jurisdiction to review such an order. Minty v. Meister Financialgroup, Inc., 97 So.3d 926, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
In this ease, bifurcation will not simplify the trial; instead, it will cause inconvenience and prejudice to Fortin in presenting her case. We quash the bifurcation order *439because the bifurcated claims are inextricably interwoven. See Minty, 97 So.3d at 931 (granting certiorari relief where the order severed some of the borrower’s counterclaims from the lender’s equitable claim for injunctive relief; final judgment; for the lender on its claim would moot the borrower’s inextricably interwoven affirmative defenses and counterclaim,' leaving the borrower no appellate remedy); Rooss v. Mayberry, 866 So.2d 174, 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (granting petition, finding' liability and damages issues to be intertwined; bifurcating them would convert what should be one trial into two, with duplicative testimony from many of the same witnesses); Maris Distrib, Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So.2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (quashing order severing breach of contract cause of action from numerous, other counts which arose in the. context of the contract, as facts underlying all .counts were interrelated).
Petition Granted, Order Quashed: ■
TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur. ■
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Minty v. Meister Financialgroup, Inc., 97 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Rooss v. Kurt R. Mayberry, M.D., 866 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)