THE FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHANNA O'NEILL AND WILLIE J. ANDERSON, 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.
First Liberty Insurance appealed a circuit court's decision allowing an insured to amend her complaint to add a first-party bad faith claim after obtaining a favorable uninsured motorist claim judgment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal treated the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and denied it, finding the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law given conflicting authority among Florida's district courts.
The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, holding that the circuit court's decision did not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law at the time of the decision because the Fourth District had not previously addressed the issue and a split of authority existed among Florida's sister appellate courts.
[1] An insurer's tender of policy limits and confession of judgment moots the substantive issues in an uninsured/under-insured motorist benefits claim, rendering a subsequent…
[2] Where an insurer confesses judgment for the full policy limits sought in an insured's complaint, the trial court errs by proceeding to trial on the uninsured/under-insure…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for granting a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error.”
Establishes the standard for granting certiorari relief, requiring more than mere legal error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst Liberty Insurance tendered its policy limits on an uninsured motorist claim brought by Johanna O'Neill and Willie J. Anderson. The circuit court…
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 First-Party Bad Faith Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The insurer appeals from: (1) the circuit court’s partial final judgment for the insured on her uninsured motorist claim after the insurer tendered its policy limits; and (2) the court’s simultaneous order grahting the insured’s motion td amend the complaint to add a first-party bad faith claim. We treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and deny the petition. .
We deny the petition because the circuit court’s decisions — at the time of its decisions — did not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1092 (Fla.2010) (“The departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for granting a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error.”).
At- the time of the circuit court’s decisions, we had not addressed the issue of whether an insured, after obtaining a favorable result on its benefits claim, may amend the complaint to add a' first-party bad faith claim instead of filing a new action on the bad faith claim.
Instead,.the circuit court was faced with a split of -authority from our sister courts on that issue. Compare Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Rader, 132 So.3d 941, 947-48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (denying insurer’s petition for writ of certiorari as -to the circuit court’s order denying the insurer’s motion to enter a final judgment in accordance with the insurer’s confession of judgment on the insured’s underinsured motorist claim, and also granting the insured’s motion to add a bad faith claim), with Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Fridman, 117 So.3d 16, 17-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion to enter a final judgment in accordancé with the insurer’s confession of judgment, and also reserving jurisdiction on the insured’s motion to amend his complaint to add a bad faith claim; instead,- the trial court, should have entered the confessed judgment in the insured’s favor, and the insured should have pursued a subsequent bad faith action against the.insurer), rev. granted, 145 So.3d 823 (Fla.2014).
*137Given the lack of binding authority from this court on the underlying issue, and given the split of authority between,our sister courts on the underlying, issue, we cannot say that the circuit court’s apparent decision to follow the First, District’s authority was a departure from the essential requirements of the law at the time of its decision. Thus, because of that procedural posture, we are compelled to deny the petition for writ of certiorari and not decide the underlying issue until a final ap-pealable judgment is entered.
Petition denied.
GROSS and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Open MRI, LLC, 208 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…issued its opinion. At that time, the applicable principle of law was sufficiently unsettled that the Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction to resolve conflicting decisions regarding the issue. In First Liberty Insurance Corp. v. O’Neill, 190 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), the Fourth District addressed a petition for certiorari directed to a circuit court decision rendered at a time when the Fourth District had not addressed the pertinent legal issue, and when there existed “a split of authority f…
Authorities Cited
- Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)
- Safeco Ins. Co. OF Ill. v. Fridman, 117 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Safeco Ins. Co. OF Ill. v. Earle Rader, Jr., 132 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)