Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359

Ashleigh Eminisor filed a negligence action alleging Keck, JTA, and JTM caused her injuries from a trolley collision.
Keck moved for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity under § 768.28(9)(a) from suit and liability; the trial court denied.
First District denied certiorari review and certified a question of public importance about interlocutory review of immunity rulings.
Florida Supreme Court rephrased the question to address whether such denials are reviewable on interlocutory appeal when the issue is purely legal.
The Court held that § 768.28(9)(a) immunity applies to officers, employees, or agents of the state or subdivisions, absent bad faith, malicious purpose, or wanton disregard, and is therefore subject to interlocutory review for pure questions of law.
The Court concluded JTM is a state agency or subdivision under § 768.28(2) because it primarily acts as an instrumentality of JTA, an agency of the State, entitling Keck to immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interlocutory review of immunity denial	Eminisor contends review should wait for final judgment unless a discretionary function issue is involved.	Keck argues immunity rulings turn on law and should be reviewable now.	Yes; the denial is reviewable on interlocutory appeal when purely legal.
Scope of immunity under 768.28(9)(a)	Immunity does not extend to being named as a defendant for acts within employment.	Immunity bars both liability and being named as defendant when acts occur within scope of employment.	Immunity applies to both liability and being named as a defendant within scope of employment unless excluded by bad faith, malicious purpose, or wanton disregard.
Whether JTM fits § 768.28(2) as a state agency or subdivision	JTM is not a state agency/subdivision because it is privately formed for labor matters.	JTM is a corporation primarily acting as an instrumentality of JTA, a state agency.	JTM is within § 768.28(2)’s third category as a state agency or subdivision; Keck is immune.

Tucker v. Resha, 648 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1994) (immunity from suit requires interlocutory review to protect immunity)
Roe v. Department of Education, 679 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1996) (sovereign immunity review timing contrasts with qualified immunity)
Department of Education v. Roe, 679 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1996) (sovereign immunity policy considerations; final judgment wait not always required)
Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 2011) (certiorari framework for orders departing from the law)
Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812 (Fla. 2004) (three-element test for certiorari to review interlocutory orders)