Narrative Opinion Summary
An insurer's appeal of a non-final order, which determined that the insured could recover under the policy despite not meeting a condition precedent, was dismissed. The insurer contended that the order was appealable under Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) because it resolved liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief. However, the court noted that other liability issues, including coverage of the claim, were still pending in the trial court. Citing Winkelman v. Toll, the court clarified that Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) allows for appeals of non-final orders that determine "the" issue of liability, not just "an" issue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with Judges Hersey, Gunther, and Klein concurring.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Non-Final Orders under Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the insurer's appeal of a non-final order, emphasizing that the rule allows appeals only when the order determines 'the' issue of liability, not merely 'an' issue.
Reasoning: Citing Winkelman v. Toll, the court clarified that Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) allows for appeals of non-final orders that determine 'the' issue of liability, not just 'an' issue.
Determination of Liability in Non-Final Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that liability was not fully resolved since other issues, including coverage of the claim, remained pending in the trial court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Reasoning: However, the court noted that other liability issues, including coverage of the claim, were still pending in the trial court.