Background

• Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 lists categories of nonfinal orders appealable interlocutorily, including a subdivision for sovereign immunity appeals that permits appeals of orders that “determine that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to sovereign immunity.”
• Preexisting precedent interpreting identical language in the workers’ compensation immunity subdivision (Hastings/Reeves/Culver) holds that an interlocutory appeal lies only when the trial court’s order expressly states on its face that, as a matter of law, the party is not entitled to the immunity; appellate review may not rely on the appellate court’s independent review of the record.
• Facts: after reopening I-75 following brushfire-related closures, Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) allegedly made negligent operational decisions; Robinson died in a crash and Jackson (estate) sued FHP.
• Trial court denied FHP’s summary-judgment motion asserting sovereign immunity, issuing a brief order stating that “disputed issues of material fact … prevent the entry of Final Summary Judgment.”
• FHP appealed under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi); the First District dismissed the appeal relying on Hastings/Reeves and certified the question whether an appeal is permitted when the record shows entitlement to immunity but the trial court did not expressly deny immunity as a matter of law.
• The Florida Supreme Court answered: no — the sovereign-immunity subdivision adopts the same rule as Hastings/Reeves (requiring an express facial statement), but it also found the current rule insufficiently protective of immunity interests and amended rule 9.130 to expand interlocutory review for sovereign and related immunities.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004) (reiterating that interlocutory appeals of denials of workers’ compensation immunity require an express facial ruling)
• Hastings v. Demming, 694 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 1997) (established rule that nonfinal denial of workers’ compensation immunity is appealable only if order so states)
• Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Culver, 716 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1998) (limiting appellate review to the trial court’s order, not the underlying record)
• Beach Community Bank v. City of Freeport, 150 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 2014) (invoked the newly added sovereign-immunity subdivision but did not decide whether record review may substitute for an express facial ruling)
• Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2009) (sovereign immunity includes immunity from suit and implicates separation-of-powers concerns)
• Dep’t of Educ. v. Roe, 679 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1996) (discussion of review timing and consequences for sovereign-immunity issues)
• Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (prior-construction canon: repealed or repeated language ordinarily imports settled judicial interpretations)
• Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795 (2019) (recognition that legal terms carry established meanings to their audience)