STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RELATOR,
v.
CARL C. DURRANCE, AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Unigard Insurance Company, a defendant in a wrongful death action, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from proceeding with post-trial motions regarding excess coverage claims after Unigard had filed a notice of appeal and posted a supersedeas bond. The appellate court denied the prohibition and temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to allow the trial court to resolve the excess coverage issues before the appeal proceeded.
The appellate court denied Unigard's request for a writ of prohibition and temporarily relinquished jurisdiction of the appeal to allow the trial court to proceed with deciding the excess coverage issues before the appeal continued, finding it expedient that all matters be determined in one appeal.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction over post-trial motions concerning excess coverage once a notice of appeal from the final judgment has been filed and supersedeas has bee…
[2] An appellate court may temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to a trial court to allow the determination of post-trial motions related to excess coverage issues.
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“It appears to this court that it would be expedient that all matters involved in this case, including "excess coverage," be determined in one appeal.”
The court's rationale for temporarily relinquishing jurisdiction rather than deciding the jurisdictional question, prioritizing efficiency and consolidated review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnigard Insurance Company and James Summerall were joint defendants in a wrongful death action. Plaintiffs obtained a $150,000 judgment against both d…
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 Suggestion For Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER ON SUGGESTION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
The relator, Unigard Insurance Company, was a joint defendant with James Sum-merall, its insured, in a wrongful death action. The case proceeded to trial and plaintiffs were awarded a $150,000.00 judgment, jointly and severally, against defendants, upon which final judgment was entered. Subsequent to entry of the final judgment defendant insurance company filed a cross-claim, pursuant to Williams v. Banning, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 725, to limit its coverage to $25,000.00, which was the coverage provided under its insurance policy with codefendant insured. Both defendant Summerall, in a counterclaim, and plaintiffs, in an answer to the cross-claim, asserted that defendant insurance company was liable in excess of its policy limits due to bad faith failure to settle and negligent defense. Subsequent to these pleadings, defendant insurance company (relator here) filed its notice of appeal of the final judgment, on behalf of both defendants. After notice of appeal was filed, the lower court set supersedeas, and relator posted the required bond. Relator then filed, in the lower court, a motion under Rule 1.-140(b), 30 F.S.A., to prevent the trial judge from proceeding with the aforesaid post-trial motions. This motion was denied and relator brought this Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition.
Relator contends here, as it did below, that once the notice of appeal was filed from the final judgment and supersedeas posted, the lower court lost jurisdiction to proceed with the post-trial motions relating to “excess coverage.”
It appears to this court that it would be expedient that all matters involved in this case, including “excess coverage,” be determined in one appeal. Rather than determining whether or not the lower court in fact has jurisdiction to proceed on the post-trial motions while this appeal is pending (which would involve issuing the rule nisi and a consequent delay) we determine it propitious to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction in the appeal from the final judgment styled James Lester Summerall and Unigard Insurance Company v. Richard J. King, et al. Case No. 72-807, in order that the trial judge may proceed forthwith to decide the matters raised in the cross-claim and subsequent pleadings, but only insofar as they deal with the aforesaid “excess coverage” issues. After such determination the clerk of the lower court shall, with reasonable dispatch, certify to this court a copy of any order entered thereon.
The Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition is, therefore, denied and jurisdiction is hereby temporarily relinquished for the above stated purpose.
LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward W. Kelly v. Williams, 411 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…plaintiff/judgment creditor). Williams v. Banning, 259 So. 2d 725 (Fla.2d DCA 1972). This procedure has also been used to raise the issue of bad faith settlement negotiating on an insurance company’s part. State ex rel. Unigard Ins. Co. v. Durrance, 276 So. 2d 112 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 281 So. 2d 505 (Fla.1973) (where appellant insurance company brought writ of prohibition to stay any lower court action on cross-claim of bad faith pending outcome of appeal from judgment, appellate court denied a writ an…
-
State ex rel. Am. Home Ins. Co. v. Honorable Russell E. Seay, Jr., 355 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…ction and resolution of the appeal from the final judgment. In the alternative Garchar and the City suggest that if we find a jurisdictional problem then we should follow the procedure provided in State ex rel. Unigard Insurance Company v. Durrance, 276 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and Williams v. Banning, 259 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), and relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court, await its determination of the cross claim, and then consider any appeal from that determination together with the appeal…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Unigard Ins. Co. v. Durrance, 281 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 276 So. 2d 112. ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Banning, 259 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)