CLARA DIAZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, 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.
Clara Diaz appealed a jury verdict in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, challenging both the jury's award determination and an attorney's fees entitlement finding. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict on the merits but dismissed the attorney's fees portion as premature since no amount had been fixed.
The court affirmed the jury verdict finding that Citizens paid the reasonable costs to repair the direct physical loss. The court dismissed the appeal regarding attorney's fees as non-final and non-appealable because the trial court had not fixed a specific amount of fees, only determined entitlement.
[1] A final judgment containing language of finality is appealable, even if it reserves jurisdiction to award attorney's fees.
[2] An order that merely finds entitlement to attorney's fees but does not set an amount is non-final and non-appealable.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 jury found that Citizens paid Ms. Diaz the reasonable costs to repair the direct physical loss to her property caused by the August 20, 2011 water leak.”
Establishes what the jury determined regarding Citizens' payment obligation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 20, 2011, Clara Diaz discovered water damage in her home caused by a leaking water heater. Citizens Property Insurance determined coverage a…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by an insured homeowner from a final judgment entered following a jury verdict in favor of Appellee, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
At trial, Appellant, Clara Diaz, testified that she woke up on August 20, 2011 and put her feet on the floor into water. She further testified that a leaking water heater was the source of that water. Ms. Diaz filed a claim with Citizens for damage to her home resulting therefrom. Citizens determined that there was coverage and paid a total of $5,307.99 on the claim. Unhappy with Citizens’ payment, Ms. Diaz sued Citizens for breach of insurance contract. The jury found that Citizens paid Ms. Diaz the reasonable costs to repair the direct physical loss to her property caused by the August 20, 2011 water leak. The jury declined to award Ms. Diaz any money for the additional damages she was claiming as a result of the covered loss.
Thereafter, the trial court entered a final judgment, in favor of Citizens and against Ms. Diaz, awarding costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes and rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in an amount to be determined at a later time. The final judgment specifically ordered that Ms. Diaz would “take nothing by this action” and that Citizens “shall go hence without delay.” This language constitutes the requisite finality necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Stanberry v. Escambia County, 813 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citing Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 743 So.2d 1215, 1215-16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that even an order that “establishes entitlement to a judgment [is not final unless it] ... actually enters or renders a judgment ... or includes specific ‘language of finality" necessary for a judgment ... to be considered ‘final’ for purposes of an appeal.”)). See also HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Buset, 216 So.3d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (declining to dismiss entire appeal on grounds that portion of final judgment reserving jurisdiction to award prevailing party fees rendered order on appeal non-final and therefore premature).
With regard to the issues raised on appeal relating to the trial and the jury verdict, we find no error and affirm.
In contrast, we are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney’s fees. This is so because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review. See Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So.3d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So.3d 248, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (order that merely finds entitlement to attorney’s fees but does not set an amount is non-final and non-appealable); Mills v. Martinez, 909 So.2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“An award of attorneys’ fees does not become final, and, therefore, appealable until the amount is set by the trial court.”); Chaiken v. Suchman, 694 So.2d 115, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (stating that an order awarding *737entitlement to attorney’s fees does not become final until the amount of the fee is set)). “Nor is such an order one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.” Id. (citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)). Accordingly, because the part of the final judgment finding entitlement to attorney’s fees is non-final and non-appealable, the appeal with respect to attorney’s fees is dismissed without prejudice.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynaldo Acosta and Iliana B. Acosta v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 245 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…d not establish an amount, it was [*883] a non-final, non-appealable order that is not ripe for our review. As such, we are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees. See Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735, 736-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("[W]e are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees .... because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is…
-
21ST Century Centennial Ins. Co. v. Walker, 254 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…n 21st Century I that arose from the trial but did not appeal the order granting attorney’s fees and costs because, at that time, the trial court had not yet entered an appealable order pertaining to that issue. See Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., 227 So. 3d 735, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to review an award of attorney’s fees where “no amount ha[d] been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto [was] not ripe fo…
-
Golden v. Goldberg, 307 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…he portion of the appeal relating to attorney’s fees . . . because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review.” (quoting Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735, 736–37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017))).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 743 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Filmore Chaiken and Robert T. Tenen v. Suchman, 694 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Earnest Stanberry, Jr. v. Escambia Cnty., 813 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Ekaterini Alexopoulos and Konstantinos Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- HSBC Bank USA v. Buset, 216 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)