Tamara Duncan, Petitioner, v. United Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent. (2010)

_

Tamara Duncan petitions for second-tier certiorari review of an order entered by the appellate division of the circuit court reversing a final summary judgment which the trial court entered in a case involving a suit for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.   We deny the petition because the petitioner has an adequate remedy on appeal.

Certiorari review of non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A) is “an extraordinary remedy which should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders.”  State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So.2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).   Furthermore, we remind counsel that a certiorari petition must satisfy three requirements before a district court can grant relief from an erroneous interlocutory order.  “A petitioner must establish (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the trial (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.”  Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Accordingly, we deny the petition because the petitioner has an adequate remedy on appeal.