MERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. CATHERINE THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED ( 2023 )

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case Nos. 6D23-1537, 6D23-1570
CONSOLIDATED
Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CA-010641-O
_____________________________
MERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Appellant,
v.
CATHERINE THOMAS,
Appellee.
_____________________________
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County.
Denise Kim Beamer, Judge.
December 15, 2023
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, Mercury Indemnity Company of America
(“Mercury”) appeals two non-final orders denying its motion to compel appraisal.1
As to case number 6D23-1537, we affirm without further discussion. With respect
to case number 6D23-1570, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the subsequent
order clarifying or modifying the prior order because the appeal of the prior order
1
These cases were transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this
Court on January 1, 2023.
was pending. See Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 338 So. 3d 1119,
1121–22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions
to vacate the subsequent order.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
WHITE, SMITH and MIZE, JJ., concur.
Frank A. Zacherl and Oliver Sepulveda, of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Miami, and
Alyssa L. Corey, of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Tampa, for Appellant.
Jacob Phillips and Amy L. Judkins, of Normand PLLC, Orlando, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
2