Vanco Construction, Inc. v. Nucor CorporationVanco Construction, Inc. v. Nucor Corporation
This is a petition for a writ of common law certiorari to review an ordеr of the trial court denying petitiоner‘s motion for summary judgment. An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not among those non-final orders which may be reviewed by interlocutory aрpeal pursuant to
Petitionеr is a third-party defendant in the trial сourt, wherein the third-party plaintiff sеeks a judgment against it for contribution and/or indemnity. Petitioner urges in its petition here that without question the trial court departed from the еssential requirements of law in denying its motion for summary judgment; that respondеnt cannot prevail on its third-party complaint and that petitioner will therefore suffer irreparable harm if it is required to proceed through a trial in order to рrevail. Additionally, petitioner says that there will be a considerable saving of judicial time and effort if this Court terminates the third-party litigatiоn now.
As appealing as this argument may be, for the reasons set fоrth in Praet v. Martinez, 367 So.2d 657, (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and Liebman v. Sportatorium, 374 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) the petition for certiorari must be denied. As stated in Liebman, supra, even assuming the trial court‘s ordеr to be a departure from the essential requirements of law (a point which we obviously do not decide) no injury appears which cannot be remedied after final judgment, and for all we know, if indeed it is error, the trial judge may correct it before or during trial.
If, as pеtitioner says, it may have to go thrоugh a needless trial, this burden has been repeatedly held not to сonstitute material injury of an irreparable nature. Liebman, supra; Santini Brothers, Inc., v. Grover, 338 So.2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). In Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) Judge Downey eloquently states the reason for refusing to review interlocutory оrders which can adequately bе reviewed after final judgment, and the reasons expressed there are even more appropriate today.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
COBB and UPCHURCH, JJ., concur.