Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA MEDICAL CLINIC, P.A., Respondent.
Scottsdale Insurance Company petitions this court for a writ of certiorari reversing the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to its insured, Florida Medical Clinic, Inc. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this petition, we dismiss the petition.
“In considering a petition for certiorari the reviewing court's first duty is to assess whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the order creates irreparable harm. If the petitioner does not make such a showing, the court lacks jurisdiction and will dismiss the petition.” Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The court must make this determination before it addresses whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). “[A] petitioner must establish that an interlocutory order creates material harm irreparable by postjudgment appeal before this court has power to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of the law.” Id. at 649.
We conclude that Scottsdale has not met its burden to demonstrate that the challenged order creates irreparable harm. The trial court did not rule on the merits of Scottsdale's affirmative defense of misrepresentation, but merely ruled Scottsdale's notice of cancellation ineffective based on the policy's terms. Because we can discern no injury that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal, we dismiss the petition for certiorari.
Dismissed.
DAVIS, Judge.
STRINGER, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 2D01-2803.
Decided: January 25, 2002
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Second District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)