Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n
104 So. 3d 344
| Fla. | 2012Background
- This case concerns whether appellate review of a non-final order denying a sovereign-immunity claim by Citizens Property Insurance Corp. is available via common-law writs or need final judgment first.
- Citizens sought interlocutory relief (prohibition or certiorari) from a non-final order denying its immunity defense in a San Perdido bad-faith action under section 624.155.
- San Perdido sued Citizens for bad faith in handling a property-damage claim; Citizens moves to dismiss citing statutory immunity under section 627.351(6).
- The First District denied certiorari and certified conflict with Fifth District decisions that permitted writs to review immunity-denial orders.
- The Florida Supreme Court held prohibitions are not available where there is a limited waiver of immunity, and certiorari cannot be used to review the merits of an immunity claim; it declined to expand Rule 9.130 to cover this discrete issue.
- Ultimately, the Court answered the rephrased certified question in the affirmative: appellate review of Citizens’ immunity claim is not available before final judgment, and no expansion of non-final-order review was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prohibition may review a non-final immunity-denial order | Citizens contends prohibition lies to correct the denial | San Perdido argues prohibition is appropriate under conflict rulings | Prohibition not available for this immunity issue. |
| Whether certiorari may review the merits of the immunity denial | Citizens claims irreparable harm from defense of suit justifies certiorari | State argues no irreparable harm and no departure from law | Certiorari not available to review the merits of Citizens’ immunity claim. |
| Whether Rule 9.130 should be amended to allow interlocutory review of this immunity issue | Citizens urges amendment to permit immediate review | Court declines expansion; policy reasons do not justify amendments here | No amendment to Rule 9.130; do not extend non-final-order review to this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mandico v. Taos Construction, Inc., 605 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1992) (prohibition review not available where immunity exists; prohibition generally lacks jurisdictional reach)
- Garfinkel v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 25 So.3d 62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (writ of prohibition used to review immunity claim (conflicting with Mandico))
- La Mer Condominium Assoc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 37 So.3d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (same use of prohibition on immunity issue criticized)
- Department of Education v. Roe, 679 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1996) (recognizes immunity review cannot always await final judgment; framework for certiorari eligibility)
- Tucker v. Resha, 648 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1994) (discussed immunity review in federal-context cases and prompted rule amendments)
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812 (Fla. 2004) (lays out standard for certiorari relief from denial of motion to dismiss)
- Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 2011) (certiorari requires irreparable harm and departure from essential law; limits on review)
- Belair v. Drew, 770 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 2000) (illustrates irreparable-harm concept and limits of certiorari)
- Martin-Johnson, Inc., 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (certiorari review is exceptional and not for mere legal error)
- Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So.3d 359 (Fla. 2012) (amendment context for immunity review under rule 9.130)