Geico General Insurance Co. v. Pruitt
122 So. 3d 484
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2006 the Rodriguezes sued Oswaldo St. Blanchard for auto-accident injuries; GEICO defended then issued a reservation of rights based on alleged misrepresentations about eyesight.
- After St. Blanchard died, the estate (Pruitt) rejected GEICO’s defense and obtained independent counsel; the trial court later entered fee/cost judgments against the estate as sanctions for misrepresentations.
- The trial court found GEICO estopped from raising misrepresentation as a coverage defense under Fla. Stat. § 627.426 (Claims Administration Statute), implicitly finding GEICO wrongfully refused to defend; summary judgment on coverage and a consent judgment followed (pending on separate appeal).
- The estate and GEICO filed competing declaratory actions: the estate sought coverage and alleged bad faith, malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty; GEICO sought a declaration of no coverage. The declaratory actions were consolidated for limited purposes and some counts were abated.
- GEICO appealed three orders granting partial summary judgment on the reasonableness and good faith of the consent judgment and an order striking GEICO’s defenses; the estate and the Rodriguezes moved to dismiss for lack of finality.
- The Third District dismissed GEICO’s appeal, holding the orders were non-final and not appealable while related bad-faith and other claims remained pending; it denied GEICO’s request to remand and sever the declaratory counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether partial summary judgments on the reasonableness and good faith of a consent judgment are immediately appealable while bad-faith claims remain pending | Estate/Rodriguezes: the orders end judicial labor on those elements of a Coblentz claim and thus are final and appealable | GEICO: immediate review required to resolve insurer liability and permit bad-faith litigation if coverage is affirmed | Not appealable: the orders are non-final because related claims remain pending; appeal dismissed |
| Whether an order striking GEICO’s defenses is immediately appealable | Plaintiffs: striking defenses relates to consent-judgment reasonableness/good faith and is properly reviewable now | GEICO: needs immediate review; the struck defenses extinguish defenses to consent judgment | Not appealable: the order is non-final and not reviewable on appeal |
| Whether declaratory counts should be severed and final judgments entered to allow piecemeal appeals | Plaintiffs: severance not necessary; severance would lead to piecemeal review | GEICO: remand to sever declaratory counts and enter final judgments so appellate review can proceed | Denied: severance/remand would permit impermissible piecemeal review; jurisdiction not established |
| Whether precedent permits interlocutory review of coverage-related rulings when bad-faith claims remain pending | Plaintiffs: existing precedent supports requiring related claims to be resolved together | GEICO: analogizes to cases allowing appellate review of coverage determinations prior to bad-faith claims | Court: Relied on cases holding closely intertwined claims preclude partial final-judgment review; interlocutory review not warranted here |
Key Cases Cited
- Coblentz v. Amer. Surety Co. of N.Y., 416 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir.) (establishes insurer liability elements for consent judgments)
- Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Stathopoulos, 113 So.3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA) (partial coverage rulings intertwined with remaining counts are not appealable as partial final judgments)
- American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Perez, 712 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA) (reviewed partial summary judgment on coverage in declaratory action following consent judgment)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tienna, 780 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA) (insurer entitled to appellate review of liability/damages before attendant bad-faith claim proceeds)
- Canal Ins. Co. v. Reed, 666 So.2d 888 (Fla.) (procedural authority concerning appellate jurisdiction)
- S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.) (prohibits piecemeal appellate review)
- Northcutt v. Pathway Fin., 555 So.2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA) (orders striking defenses are non-final)
- Chomat v. N. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 919 So.2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA) (definition and scope of bad-faith claims)
- Quintana v. Barad, 528 So.2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA) (discusses Coblentz elements in Florida context)