PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
ENRIQUE GONZALEZ

Fla. 3d DCA | 2021-02-03
No. 20-0923
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2021) Negative Treatment
Cited by 15 cases

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.


Holding

An order requiring interim payment on a partial judgment while leaving factually related claims unresolved is not appealable as a final order but is reviewable by petition for writ of certiorari.


Headnotes

[1] A partial judgment requiring interim payment on a claim while leaving factually intertwined matters unresolved may be reviewed by petition for writ of certiorari where th…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“precisely because the order as written requires a party to pay but allows no avenue to appeal, the order is subject to review through a petition for certiorari”

Court's explanation for why certiorari relief is appropriate despite lack of direct appeal jurisdiction

Facts & Procedural History

People's Trust Insurance Company obtained a June 17, 2020 order requiring it to pay Enrique Gonzalez $70,800 for fire damage to his building within te…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 4, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-923 Lower Tribunal No. 19-7413

________________

People's Trust Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Enrique Gonzalez,

Appellee. An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., and David C. Borucke (Tampa), for appellant. Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez, & Martinez, P.L., and Steven E. Gurian, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and LOBREE, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

LOGUE, J.

This matter is before us on Appellee Enrique Gonzalez’s motion to dismiss.

This is a first-party insurance case. The June 17, 2020 order under review requires

People’s Trust Insurance Company to pay Gonzalez $70,800 for fire damage to his building within ten days of the date of the order. The order, however, leaves unresolved other, factually related claims including one for fire damage to personal property.

Because the order does not complete the judicial labor in the trial court on factually related matters, we agree with Gonzalez that the order under review does not qualify as a partial final judgment, which would be appealable as a final order.

See Fla. R. Civ. P. 9.110(k). We also agree with Gonzalez that the order is not on the list of non-final orders authorized by the Supreme Court to be appealed on an interlocutory basis. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 9.130. For this reason, Gonzalez is eminently correct that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of this order at this time.

However, precisely because the order as written requires a party to pay but allows no avenue to appeal, the order is subject to review through a petition for certiorari. Courts have consistently found that an order resolving only part of a civil lawsuit by requiring a party to make an interim payment while leaving intertwined factual matters unresolved presents the type of irreparable harm remediable by issuance of a writ of certiorari. See, e.g., Team Richco, LLC v. Rapid Sec. Sols.,

LLC, 290 So. 3d 629, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (issuing writ and quashing partial judgment that results in “irreparable injury where it authorizes execution prior to entry of a final, appealable order”); East Ave., LLC v. Insignia Bank, 136 So. 3d

659, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (same).

As was done in these cases, we are bound to treat Appellant’s filing as seeking the correct remedy. See Fla. R. Civ. P 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought . . . .”).

Accordingly, we treat People’s Trust’s initial brief as a petition for writ of certiorari.

Enrique Gonzalez shall file a response within 20 days from the date of this order.

Motion to dismiss denied.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (15 total)

  • Thomas-McDonald Law Firm, P.A. v. Silva, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
    …etimes referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements of the law.’” Schaeffer v. Medic, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1438, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA July 10, 2024) (footnote omitted) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 277 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)). The requirement of irreparable harm is jurisdictional. “Unless the petitioner establishes irreparable harm, the court must dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.” Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152 So. 3d 789, 792 (Fl…
  • Aguilar v. Leal (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
    …rrected on appeal (sometimes referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements of the law." Schaeffer v. Medic, 394 So. 3d 128, 130–31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (footnote omitted) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 277 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)). “The requirement of irreparable harm is jurisdictional.” Thomas- McDonald L. Firm, P.A. v. Silva, 400 So. 3d 753, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). "Unless the petitioner establishes irreparable harm, the court must dismiss the petit…
  • …ri relief, there must be: ‘(1) a material injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements of the law.’ ” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 277 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712, 721 (Fla. 2012)). Among other things, State Farm asserts its appraiser has a right to privacy protected by the Florida Constitution when he visit…

Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw