State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Seville Place Condominium Ass'n
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11314, 74 So. 3d 105, 2011 WL 2905642 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction is not properly invoked to review a non-final order allowing an amendment to a complaint to add a bad faith claim, as such an order does not, by itself, cause irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on a post-judgment appeal.
Facts:
- Seville Place Condominium Association, Inc. held a condominium association insurance policy with State Farm Florida Insurance Company.
- On October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma caused substantial windstorm damage to Seville Place's properties, particularly its roofs.
- Seville Place filed a claim, estimating its loss at over $4.6 million based on the need for full roof replacement.
- In January 2006, State Farm paid Seville Place approximately $90,564, based on its assessment that the roofs could be repaired rather than replaced.
- The insurance policy contained a clause requiring disputes over the amount of loss to be resolved through an appraisal process.
- In October 2006, Seville Place made a written demand for appraisal under the policy to resolve the dispute over the loss amount.
Procedural Posture:
- Seville Place Condominium Association sued State Farm in a Florida circuit court (trial court) for breach of contract and declaratory relief.
- The circuit court granted a motion to compel appraisal and appointed a neutral umpire.
- The appraisal panel issued a final award of $2,960,405.
- The trial court entered an order confirming the appraisal award, denying State Farm's motion to remove the umpire.
- The trial court then granted Seville Place's motion to amend its complaint to add claims for statutory bad faith, common law bad faith, and punitive damages.
- State Farm, the petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) seeking to quash the trial court's order allowing the amended complaint.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's non-final order granting leave to amend a complaint to add a premature bad faith claim, without compelling discovery on that claim, cause irreparable harm sufficient to invoke an appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Salter, J.
No. A non-final order permitting a party to amend its complaint to add an allegedly premature bad faith claim does not, without more, constitute the irreparable harm necessary to invoke an appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction. For an appellate court to review a non-final order, a petitioner must show both a departure from the essential requirements of law and an irreparable injury that cannot be fixed on final appeal. The irreparable harm requirement is a jurisdictional threshold. In this case, merely allowing the amendment does not create such harm because no discovery related to the bad faith claim has been compelled. The potential harm, such as the disclosure of privileged claims file information, is not yet imminent. Therefore, the alleged error can be adequately remedied on direct appeal after a final judgment is entered. The court receded from prior decisions that suggested certiorari was available to challenge any premature bad faith claim, clarifying that the line is crossed when discovery is compelled, not when the claim is merely pleaded.
Concurring - Shepherd, J.
No. The petition for certiorari should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction rather than denied. The irreparable harm prong of the certiorari test is a threshold jurisdictional question. If a petitioner fails to demonstrate irreparable harm, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to even consider the merits of whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. Dismissal is the proper disposition when jurisdiction is absent. Denying the petition, by contrast, implies the court had jurisdiction but found the claim lacked merit. This distinction is critical for maintaining clarity in the law of certiorari and properly guiding future litigants. The concurrence agrees with the majority's substantive conclusion that adding a premature bad faith claim is not, by itself, an irreparable harm, and concurs in receding from prior case law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and significantly narrows the availability of certiorari review for insurers challenging premature bad faith claims in Florida. By establishing that the mere pleading of a bad faith claim is not irreparable harm, the court forces insurers to wait until a trial court compels discovery on that claim before seeking appellate intervention. This ruling promotes judicial economy by preventing interlocutory appeals over pleading issues that can be resolved on a final appeal. However, it also means insurers may have to litigate a potentially improper claim in the trial court for a longer period, heightening the importance of motions for protective orders to prevent the irreparable harm of disclosing privileged materials.
Unlock the full brief for State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Seville Place Condominium Ass'n