FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY v. REHABILITATION CENTER AT HOLLYWOOD HILLS, LLC
19-1063
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Dec 11, 2019Background:
- Bernice Moultrie, a former resident of the Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills, sued Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) alleging injury after a power loss during Hurricane Irma.
- FPL moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing its tariff’s "2.5 Continuity of Service" clause bars liability for interruptions caused by "acts of God" (e.g., hurricanes).
- The tariff at issue was approved by the Florida Public Service Commission and is treated as having the force of law.
- The trial court denied FPL’s motion to dismiss, concluding resolution of the tariff defense requires factual determinations about causation and the asserted defense.
- FPL sought certiorari review in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, arguing the tariff immunized it from suit as a matter of law.
- The district court dismissed the certiorari petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding denial of motions to dismiss asserting immunity is not reviewable by certiorari when the immunity claim depends on disputed facts.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FPL’s tariff bars liability for hurricane-related outages | Moultrie: complaint states a viable claim; tariff does not categorically bar suit and factual disputes exist | FPL: tariff’s "acts of God" clause and PSC-approved rates immunize FPL from suit for hurricane-caused outages | Not resolved on certiorari; trial court’s denial remains because factual issues preclude ruling as a matter of law |
| Whether denial of a motion to dismiss asserting tariff-based immunity is reviewable by certiorari | Moultrie: immediate review not required; factual disputes must be resolved in trial court | FPL: denial should be immediately reviewable because the tariff grants immunity as a matter of law | Petition dismissed for lack of certiorari jurisdiction; Supreme Court precedent bars certiorari when immunity turns on disputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012) (denial of motion to dismiss raising immunity from suit is not subject to certiorari when immunity depends on factual disputes)
- Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2012) (appellate-rule amendment is required for immediate review of certain immunity determinations)
- Tucker v. Resha, 648 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1994) (same principle regarding limits on extraordinary writ review)
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004) (certiorari inappropriate where immunity depends on disputed facts)
- Ramos v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 21 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (explaining utility tariffs are promulgated, approved, and govern rates, rules, and regulations)
- Landrum v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 505 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (utility tariff recognized as having the force and effect of law)