DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
RUBY MCKENZIE ET AL., 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.
Dairyland Insurance Company sought common law certiorari review of an interlocutory order finding it was obligated to provide coverage under a nonowners automobile liability policy. The court denied certiorari because no final judgment had been rendered and the insurer would have an adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment.
Common law certiorari is not a permissible vehicle for reviewing an interlocutory order unless three conditions are met: (1) the ruling, if erroneous, constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law; (2) it will cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of proceedings; and (3) the injury is one for which there will be no adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment. The petition was denied because no judgment had yet been rendered against either party and petitioner would have an adequate remedy by appeal if a final judgment were rendered.
[1] Common law certiorari is not a permissible vehicle for seeking review of an interlocutory order in a law action unless the ruling, if erroneous, constitutes a departure f…
[2] A party suffers no injury from an interlocutory order until a judgment is rendered against them.
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“It is an established principle of law in this jurisdiction that common law certiorari is not a permissible vehicle for seeking review of an interlocutory order rendered in a law action unless it is clearly established that (1) the ruling, .if erroneous, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law; and (2) it will cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings; and (3) the injury is one for which there will be no adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment.”
Establishes the three-part test required for certiorari review of interlocutory orders in this jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent McKenzie sought damages for injuries from a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by negligent operation by Mary L. Willis. Dairyland Ins…
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 Negligent Operation Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks review by common law certiorari of an interlocutory order rendered in a law action in which respondent McKenzie seeks a judgment for damages resulting from the alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle by respondent Mary L. Willis. The order challenged by this proceeding found that petitioner, Dairyland Insurance Company, a named defendant in the suit, was legally bound to afford coverage to its insureds, Mary L. and Carlton O’Neal Willis, under the provisions of the nonowners automobile liability insurance policy issued by it to the Willises prior to the accident.
It is an established principle of law in this jurisdiction that common law certiorari is not a permissible vehicle for seeking review of an interlocutory order rendered in a law action unless it is clearly established that (1) the ruling, .if erroneous, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law; and (2) it will cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings; and (3) the injury is one for which there will be no adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment. 1
From the record before us it appears that no judgment has yet been rendered against either petitioner or its insureds, the Willises. Until such event occurs, no injury will be suffered by petitioner. If such contingency does eventuate, petitioner will then have an adequate and complete remedy by appeal for correcting the trial court’s erroneous ruling if such ruling constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law as contended. For the foregoing reasons, certiorari is denied.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
The Hawaiian INN OF Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…and is not a writ of expediency and should not be used to circumvent the rule authorizing appeal from only a few non-final orders.3 The petition for certiorari is DENIED. COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See Dairyland Insurance Company v. McKenzie, 251 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). . See Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Professional Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Renfroe, 362 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Ford Motor Company v. Nelson, 355 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA…
-
Doyle Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…e, should have been followed. While we agree with this [*1256] premise, certiorari is not an appropriate method of review because no irreparable injury has occurred that would not be remediable by plenary appeal. Dairyland Insurance Co. v. McKenzie, 251 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). In the present case, however, we have determined that the “writ of mandamus” represents an end to judicial labor in this proceeding except for enforcement where necessary, and is therefore a final, appealable order.6 Warren v. S…
-
Bowl Am. Fla., Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…UPCHURCH, Judge, dissents. Appellate courts have discouraged litigants in their attempts to secure this writ of common law certiorari and have narrowly applied the test from Dairyland Insurance Co. v. McKenzie, 251 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), to determine whether the writ should be granted. Cases state that a liberal application of that test would increase judicial labor or be used by contentious litigants to delay resolution of cases. I agree that it is best to lim…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)