ACOSTA v. TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY (2018)

We find no error with regard to the issues raised on appeal relating to the final judgment entered in favor of Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company and, therefore, affirm. Because the order granting Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs from Reynaldo Acosta and Iliana B. Acosta did not establish an amount, it was a non-final, non-appealable order that is not ripe for our review. As such, we are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees. See Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So.3d 735, 736–37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[W]e are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees ․ because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review.” (first citing Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So.3d 833, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ); then citing Mills v. Martinez, 909 So.2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); and then citing Chaiken v. Suchman, 694 So.2d 115, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ). “Nor is such an order one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.” Id. at 737 (quoting Kling Corp., 127 So.3d at 833); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3). Accordingly, the appeal with respect to attorney's fees is dismissed without prejudice.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

LINDSEY, J.