Government Employees Insurance Company v. Arreola, 2D16-2831

Background

Elizabeth was driving Maria Arreola's car and was sued by another driver; GEICO defended under a policy that gave it control of the defense.
The plaintiff served $25,000 proposals for settlement on both Arreolas; GEICO's assigned in‑house counsel let them expire.
A jury verdict produced a judgment against the Arreolas for roughly $80,428 and an attorney's fee judgment of $121,000 under Florida's proposal‑for‑settlement statute.
The Arreolas sued GEICO alleging bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence by GEICO's assigned counsel; they later moved for summary judgment asserting GEICO was liable under the policy's supplemental/additional payments provision (a theory not pleaded).
The trial court granted partial summary judgment that GEICO must pay the attorney's fee judgment and authorized execution; GEICO appealed.
The Second District held the partial summary judgment was nonfinal and nonappealable but converted the appeal to a certiorari petition and quashed the order because it improperly authorized execution before a final judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the partial summary judgment holding GEICO liable under the policy's supplemental payments provision was an appealable final judgment	Arreolas: the partial judgment disposes of a distinct contract claim and authorizes execution; thus it is final and appealable	GEICO: the order is nonfinal because the supplemental‑payments theory was not pleaded and is interdependent with remaining claims	Not appealable — the claim arose after pleading, overlaps facts/damages with pending bad‑faith claim, and is interdependent, so rule 9.110(k) does not permit immediate appeal
Whether execution should be permitted before final judgment	Arreolas: the order authorizing execution was proper because the partial judgment was final in form	GEICO: permitting execution deprives GEICO of appellate protection (no opportunity to file supersedeas bond) and causes irreparable harm	Certiorari relief granted — execution authorization was an improper departure from essential requirements of law and caused material, uncorrectable injury; order quashed
Whether differing legal theories (contract vs. bad faith) render counts independent for appealability	Arreolas: breach and bad‑faith claims are separate legal theories and thus independently appealable	GEICO: overlap in facts and damages means the claims are interrelated despite different legal theories	Court: differing legal theories do not make claims independent when they arise from the same facts and overlap in damages; appeal not allowed

Key Cases Cited

Hallock v. Holiday Isle Resort & Marina, Inc., 885 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (not all partial judgments are immediately appealable)
Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (piecemal appeals disallowed when claims are interrelated and arise from same transaction)
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Stathopoulos, 113 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (factors for assessing appealability of partial final judgments)
Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 654 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (interdependence analysis focuses on facts underlying claims)
Pellegrino ex rel. Pellegrino v. Horwitz, 642 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (different legal theories do not make counts appealable if based on common facts)
Continental Ins. Co. v. Jones, 592 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1992) (damages in first‑party bad faith are consequential from insurer's bad faith)
Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (certiorari standards: departure, material injury, untimeliness of postjudgment appeal)
E. Ave., LLC v. Insignia Bank, 136 So. 3d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (execution prior to completion of litigation can justify certiorari relief)
Dahly v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 876 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (discussion of rule 9.110(k) criteria)
S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974) (early authority on disallowing piecemeal appeals)