Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Flora-Tech Plantscapes, Inc.
225 So. 3d 336
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Flora-Tech was sued in underlying personal-injury litigation; it sought a declaratory judgment that its insurer, Mid-Continent Casualty Company (MCC), must defend and indemnify it under a commercial general liability policy.
- MCC counterclaimed and crossclaimed, asserting no duty to defend or indemnify Flora-Tech for claims by Coastal and Palace.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the trial court denied MCC’s motion and granted Flora-Tech’s motion “to the extent it seeks a declaration” that MCC has a duty to defend.
- The trial court expressly declined to rule on MCC’s duty to indemnify; no final judgment was entered.
- MCC appealed the court’s declaration that it has a duty to defend; the appellate court questioned its own jurisdiction and ordered supplemental briefing.
- The court sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the order was a non-final, non-appealable order and did not constitute an injunction under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s summary-judgment declaration that MCC has a duty to defend is an appealable final or otherwise reviewable non-final order | Flora-Tech: The declaration is a proper summary adjudication of the duty to defend and supports appeal | MCC: The declaration is effectively an injunction compelling defense and is appealable under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B) or otherwise reviewable | Court: Not appealable — the order merely grants summary judgment (no final judgment), and does not command MCC to act (not an injunction); appeal dismissed |
| Whether the order is a partial final judgment under Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k) | Flora-Tech: The duty-to-defend determination is separable and reviewable | MCC: It is a discrete, separable cause of action permitting immediate appeal | Court: No — indemnity remains pending, so order is not a partial final judgment |
| Whether Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(m) (coverage-judgment appeals) supplies jurisdiction | Flora-Tech: Rule 9.110(m) applies only to judgments and does not expand jurisdiction here | MCC: The rule allows review of coverage determinations | Court: Rule 9.110(m) is inapplicable because the order is not a judgment and the rule does not expand jurisdiction over non-final orders |
| Whether precedent (Arvida and federal cases) supports treating a duty-to-defend declaration as an injunction | Flora-Tech: Arvida is distinguishable because that order expressly commanded the insurer to defend; other federal cases involved orders compelling defense or advances | MCC: Arvida and federal decisions permit review when an appeal challenges a duty-to-defend determination | Court: Distinguished Arvida and federal cases — they involved affirmative injunctions compelling defense or payments; this case contains no such directive, so those authorities do not confer jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ball v. Genesis Outsourcing Solutions, LLC, 174 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA) (an order granting summary judgment is not necessarily a final, appealable order)
- Lidsky Vaccaro & Montes, P.A. v. Morejon, 813 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA) (summary-judgment orders lacking traditional finality language are not final judgments)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Arvida Corp., 421 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA) (order that expressly directed insurer to assume defense treated as appealable injunction or final relief)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harrick, 763 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA) (order determining duty to defend but not indemnity is not appealable)
- Florida Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Peacock’s Excavating Serv., Inc., 186 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA) (duty-to-defend determination without resolving indemnity is not appealable)
- National Assurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Kelley, 702 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA) (Rule 9.110(m) limited to judgments)