Arch Insurance Company v. Lender Processing Services, Inc. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •           FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D19-2315
    _____________________________
    ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Appellant,
    v.
    LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES,
    INC.,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
    Tyrie W. Boyer, Judge.
    August 29, 2019
    PER CURIAM.
    We grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss, and dismiss this
    appeal. The order on appeal, rendered May 23, 2019, merely
    repeats the lower tribunal’s ruling in 2016 that there was no valid
    settlement agreement between these parties. The 2016 order was
    nonfinal and not appealable. However, a new provision of the
    nonfinal appeal rule became effective January 1, 2019, authorizing
    appeals of nonfinal orders that determine “that, as a matter of law,
    a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never
    existed.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xii). See In re Amendments
    to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure-2017 Regular-Cycle
    Report, 
    256 So. 3d 1218
    (Fla. 2018).
    Starting late in 2018, Appellant attempted to revisit the 2016
    ruling by filing new motions raising the same issues on the same
    facts, culminating in a 2019 order on motion for partial summary
    judgment and then a “partial summary judgement [sic]” that
    references the court’s earlier rulings and the reasons for them. The
    2019 order appealed was a republication of the trial court’s 2016
    ruling, and did not open a window for an interlocutory appeal
    under the new appellate rule. See Henderson v. Tandem Health
    Care of Jacksonville, Inc., 
    898 So. 2d 1191
    , 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA
    2005) (holding rendition of new order requiring rescheduling and
    active participation in arbitration was not appealable as order
    determining entitlement to arbitration, which had been
    determined in earlier order that was not appealed); Churchville v.
    Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 
    876 So. 2d 649
    , 651 (Fla. 1st DCA
    2004) (holding rendition of new order materially the same as prior
    order that was not appealed did not open new appeal window); see
    also, e.g., Shannon v. Cheney Bros. Inc., 
    157 So. 3d 397
    , 399 (Fla.
    1st DCA 2015) (noting that non-appealable nonfinal orders may be
    reviewed on plenary appeal as explained in Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h)
    and Fla. R. App. P. 9.130[h]).
    Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. All pending motions
    are denied as moot.
    LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    Jeptha F. Barbour and Edward L. Birk of Marks Gray, P.A.,
    Jacksonville; Peter D. Webster of Carlton Fields, P.A.,
    Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    James D. Gassenheimer and Paul A. Avron of Berger Singerman
    LLP, Miami, for Appellee.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-2315

Filed Date: 8/29/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/29/2019