ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC.
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.
An interlocutory appeal of a republished nonfinal order on settlement agreement enforceability that was not timely appealed when originally rendered is not revived by a new appellate rule authorizing such appeals, where the new order does not represent a material new determination but merely repeats the prior ruling.
[1] An order that merely repeats a prior nonfinal, nonappealable ruling does not create a new window for an interlocutory appeal, even if a new rule of appellate procedure au…
[2] A new provision of the nonfinal appeal rule authorizing appeals of nonfinal orders that determine that a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never exi…
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“The 2019 order appealed was a republication of the trial court's 2016 ruling, and did not open a window for an interlocutory appeal under the new appellate rule.”
The court's explanation for why the new appellate rule did not permit review of the 2019 order despite the effective date of the rule falling between the 2016 and 2019 orders.
Arch Insurance appealed a May 23, 2019 partial summary judgment order from the trial court concerning settlement agreement enforceability. The 2019 or…
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
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D19-2315 _____________________________
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,
v. LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC.,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Tyrie W. Boyer, Judge.
August 29, 2019 PER CURIAM.
We grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss, and dismiss this appeal. The order on appeal, rendered May 23, 2019, merely repeats the lower tribunal’s ruling in 2016 that there was no valid settlement agreement between these parties. The 2016 order was nonfinal and not appealable. However, a new provision of the nonfinal appeal rule became effective January 1, 2019, authorizing appeals of nonfinal orders that determine “that, as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xii). See In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure-2017 Regular-Cycle Report, 256 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2018).
2
Starting late in 2018, Appellant attempted to revisit the 2016 ruling by filing new motions raising the same issues on the same facts, culminating in a 2019 order on motion for partial summary judgment and then a “partial summary judgement [sic]” that references the court’s earlier rulings and the reasons for them. The 2019 order appealed was a republication of the trial court’s 2016 ruling, and did not open a window for an interlocutory appeal under the new appellate rule. See Henderson v. Tandem Health Care of Jacksonville, Inc., 898 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding rendition of new order requiring rescheduling and active participation in arbitration was not appealable as order determining entitlement to arbitration, which had been determined in earlier order that was not appealed); Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding rendition of new order materially the same as prior order that was not appealed did not open new appeal window); see also, e.g., Shannon v. Cheney Bros. Inc., 157 So. 3d 397, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (noting that non-appealable nonfinal orders may be reviewed on plenary appeal as explained in Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h) and Fla. R. App. P. 9.130[h]).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. All pending motions are denied as moot.
LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Jeptha F. Barbour and Edward L. Birk of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville; Peter D. Webster of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. James D. Gassenheimer and Paul A. Avron of Berger Singerman LLP, Miami, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Henderson v. Tandem Health Care OF Jacksonville, Inc., 898 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- In re Amendments TO the Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure-2017 Regular-Cycle Report., 256 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2018)
- Shannon v. Cheney Bros. Inc. & The Travelers, 157 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)