GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
RICARDO PEREZ AND LUZ PEREZ, HIS WIFE, 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.
GEICO's appeal of a declaratory judgment on stacked uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage was dismissed as premature because the order was non-final, adjudicating only one count of a six-count complaint with intertwined remaining claims.
An order determining UM/UIM coverage in a first-party insurance claim is non-final and non-appealable when other related counts remain pending.
[1] Rule 9.110(m) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure permits interlocutory appeals of coverage determinations only in third-party claims against an insured, not in f…
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 intelligenceGEICO appealed a trial court order captioned "Final Declaratory Judgment as to UM/UIM Coverage" that adjudicated only one count of the Perezes' six-co…
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 Third Party Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant GEICO General Insurance Company appeals an order of the trial court, captioned “Final Declaratory Judgment as to UM/UIM Coverage.” We grant Appellees Ricardo Perez and Luz Perez’s motion to dismiss GEICO’s appeal as premature.
The order adjudicates only one count of Appellees’ six-count complaint, to wit: Ap-pellees’ claim that GEICO’s insurance policy provided stacked uninsured/underin-sured motorist coverage for a November 29, 2013 crash. The remaining counts of Appellees’ complaint are intertwined with, and are not independent of, the adjudicated count. .Irrespective of how the .order is captioned, the order is non-final and non-appealable; related claims remain pending between the parties. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 122 So.3d 484, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
We agree with Appellees that rule 9.110(m) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure- (which provides for appeals of non-final orders that determine the existence or nonexistence of insurance coverages in cases in which a claim has been made against an insured and coverage is disputed by the insurer) is inapplicable to vest us with jurisdiction to review the order on appeal. Rule 9.110(m) provides for interlocutory appeals for third-party *381claims, and not for first-party claims seeking UM/UIM benefits. Workmen’s Auto Ins. Co. v. Franz, 24 So.3d 638, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 946 So.2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Coley, 225 So. 3d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wilson (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Workmen's Auto Ins. Co. v. Franz, 24 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 122 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 946 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)