Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Co. v. Peacock's Excavating Service, Inc.
186 So. 3d 6
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance sued Peacock’s Excavating for a declaratory judgment on whether it had a duty to defend and indemnify under six CGL policies.
- Peacock’s Excavating sought a declaration that Florida Farm had to defend and indemnify under the same policies in the underlying construction litigation.
- The underlying dispute stemmed from alleged defective site work on a residential project and an equitable subrogation action by the general contractors.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defense and indemnity under all policies, later issuing a final partial judgment restricting the duty to defend to certain policy periods and omitting indemnity.
- Florida Farm appealed the Partial Final Judgment, arguing it was appealable and final as to the insurer’s defense obligation.
- The court concluded the Partial Final Judgment was not a final appealable order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Partial Final Judgment an appealable final order? | Florida Farm contends the judgment settles a discrete, appealable aspect of coverage. | Peacock’s Excavating maintains the judgment is one step in a single declaratory relief action and not independently final. | No; the Partial Final Judgment is not an appealable final order. |
| Does the judgment dispose of a separate and independent cause of action? | Florida Farm argues the defense duty constitutes a separable issue from indemnity. | Peacock’s Excavating argues the defenses and indemnity are interdependent within a single controversy. | No; it concerns a single, indivisible declaratory relief action. |
| May the appeal proceed under Rule 9.110 or certiorari despite lack of finality? | Florida Farm seeks appellate review of the partial determination. | Peacock’s Excavating argues the relief is not final and not reviewable under those provisions. | No; jurisdiction was lacking under the applicable rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Stathopoulos, 113 So.3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (framework for finality of partial judgments in insurance disputes)
- SCI, Inc. v. Aneco Co., 410 So.2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (test for finality: end of judicial labor; no further action needed)
- Marinich v. Special Edition Custom Homes, LLC, 1 So.3d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (separate and distinct causes of action must be independently appealable)
- Dahly v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 876 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (three-factor test for finality of partial judgments)
- Szewczyk v. Bayshore Props., 456 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (factors for determining appealable partial final judgments)
- Aetna Ins. Co. v. Borrell-Bigby Elec. Co., 541 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify timing relevance)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 371 So.2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (courts should resolve all coverage aspects in declaratory actions to avoid piecemeal results)
- Transcontinental Insurance Co. v. Jim Black & Associates, Inc., 888 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (partial final judgment can be appealable when it resolves broader coverage)
- Aetna Commercial Insurance Co. v. American Sign Co., 687 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (partial summary judgments on defense issues; jurisdictional considerations)