Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

January 30, 2020 | Blog Post| Florida Supreme Court rewrites the rules

Florida Supreme Court rewrites the rules, lifting restrictions on the immediate appeal of orders denying absolute, qualified, or sovereign immunity.

For those who have kept abreast of the latest opinions issued by the Florida Supreme Court, it should come to no surprise that the court recently amended sua sponte the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 to remove the limitation in the existing rule that permitted interlocutory review only of those orders that determined “as a matter of law” that a party was not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity in a civil rights claim arising under federal law, or to immunity under section 758.28(9), Florida Statutes, or to sovereign immunity. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii), (x) & (xi). The new majority of our Supreme Court has shown once again that it is not afraid to change its rules when it believes change is needed and justified.

In a separate opinion issued the same day with the opinion amending rule 9.130, the court found that the sovereign immunity subdivision in the then existing rule 9.130 “insufficiently protects the public and governmental interests served by sovereign immunity.” Florida Highway Patrol v. Jackson, SC18-468, 2020 WL 370366, at *6 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020). The court noted that although “the rule reflects an understandable concern for the limited resources of appellate courts,” it poses a great risk that denials of sovereign immunity are reviewed when it is too late. Id. Given that in Florida, sovereign immunity is both immunity from liability and from suit, Jackson, 2020 WL 370366, at *5, the inability of a party to seek interlocutory review from the denial of sovereign immunity merely because it was not determined as a matter of law, frustrates the very purpose of sovereign immunity. The court explained that immunity in civil rights claims arising under federal law and immunity under section 768.28(9) are also immunity from suit and protect similar interests to those underlying sovereign immunity. Id. at *6. Therefore, the court concluded, an expanded interlocutory review should also be afforded to the denial of such claims.

The amended rule that took effect January 23, 2020, with the publication of the amendment, creates a new subdivision 9.130(a)(3)(F) that allows appeals of nonfinal orders which deny a motion that:

(i) asserts entitlement to absolute or qualified immunity in a civil rights claim arising under federal law;

(ii) asserts entitlement to immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes; or

(ii) asserts entitlement to sovereign immunity. In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, SC19-1734, 2020 WL 370367, at *1, *2 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020). The new version of the rule removes the requirement that the orders determine “as a matter of law” that a party is not entitled to the asserted immunity.  Id. at *1. Thus, whenever a trial court denies a motion claiming entitlement to immunity, the appellate court has jurisdiction to review it, and “may review as much of the record as is necessary to resolve the question presented in the appeal.” Id.

Stay tuned: the changes might not end with this amendment. The Florida Supreme Court has asked the Florida Bar's Appellate Court Rules Committee to consider whether the subdivision that allows for review of orders denying as a matter of law worker’s compensation immunity should benefit from the same expansion. Id.

Mihaela Cabulea | OF COUNSEL

Appellate, Extra-Contractual, First-Party Coverage & Third-Party Coverage

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

June 22, 2020 Blog PostMajor appellate jurisdictional shifts in Florida: the effects are yet to be determined

On June 20, 2020, the Florida governor signed into law Senate Bill 1392, which, among other things, divests circuit courts of jurisdiction over appeals from county court orders or judgments...

Read More »
May 14, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips #5 | What is Appellate Law?

Partner Anthony Russo offers insights on the practice of Appellate law. Stay tuned to find out more helpful tips! #ButlerLegal #ThursdayTips #ThursdayThoughts

Read More »
January 07, 2019 Blog PostOfferors relax! Offerees take note! The technical requirements of rule 2.516 do not apply to proposals for settlement

The Florida Supreme Court in Wheaton v. Wheaton, No. SC17-716, 2019 WL 99109 (Fla. Jan.4, 2019), resolved the district split on the issue whether proposals for settlement made pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 must comply with the e-mail service provisions of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516.

Read More »
October 25, 2018 Blog PostFlorida Supreme Court gives green light to insurers to take immediate appeals of rulings that find no settlement reached

Attention liability insurers and their counsel – the Florida Supreme Court has given the green light to immediate appeals of non-final orders that determine the existence and enforceability of settlement agreements.

Read More »
May 21, 2018 Blog PostThis offer expires in 30 days! No automatic extensions says high court

The new rule? The filing of a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090 to enlarge the time to accept a proposal for settlement does not automatically toll the 30-day deadline for accepting the proposal until the motion is decided.

Read More »
August 04, 2017 Blog PostStill Keeping Us Guessing: Florida Supreme Court Poised to Clarify The Daubert Standard in Florida. Maybe.

Earlier this year, the Florida supreme court raised a red flag on the new Florida Statute section 90.702 in In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, SC16-181, 2017 WL 633770 (Fla. Feb. 16, 2017).  In that opinion the supreme court only noted it had “grave concerns” that (unidentified) elements of the new section 90.702 Daubert statute are constitutionally suspect – it gave no substantive ruling on the matter.

Read More »
July 26, 2017 Blog PostThe Continuing Saga of Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company: The Second District Court of Appeal Rules on Remand

On July 20, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal issued an order that closed its books on the Sebo appeal.  Mr. Sebo made a homeowner’s claim to American Home contending construction deficiencies had allowed water to enter the residence at multiple points, causing, eventually, a complete destruction of the residence.  The trial court ruled the concurrent cause doctrine applied, and so that the combination of covered water damage and excluded faulty, inadequate and defective construction had resulted in coverage for the loss. 

Read More »

Extraordinary Writs:  Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.  The ins and outs of appellate relief via an extraordinary writ covered by Carol in depth in this webinar.  

Read More »
May 02, 2017 Blog PostPreserving Error For Appeal in Florida State Courts 2017 Podcast

Carol’s first webinar for the 2017 Appellate Webinar Series covered preserving error for appeal in Florida state courts.  Don’t win the battle and lose the war because of unpreserved error! 

If you missed the webinar, you can catch up on all of the essential information you need to know regarding critical preservation issues downloadable on all devices.

Read More »
April 14, 2017 Blog PostSupreme Court says lawyer's referral of client to a doctor for treatment is attorney-client privileged communication, and out of bounds in discovery

The Florida Supreme Court declared that the attorney-client privilege shielded a motor vehicle accident plaintiff from being required to disclose that her attorney had referred her to a doctor for treatment.

Read More »
April 03, 2017 Blog PostFlorida Supreme Court To Consider Rule Change Allowing Immediate Review Of Orders On Settlement Agreements

The Florida Bar Appellate Rules Committee has proposed to the Florida Supreme Court an amendment to the appellate rules that would allow immediate appeals of orders that determine if, “as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, was set aside, or never existed.” 

Read More »
February 21, 2017 Blog PostSupreme Court speaks on Daubert – says not much

Last week the supreme court issued its opinion on the recommendations of the Florida Bar Rules committee regarding the new Daubert statute. The supreme court noted there are “grave concerns” that (unidentified) elements of the Daubert statute are constitutionally suspect.  But, in the end, Florida’s Daubert statute is still the law of Florida – the Florida statute was not struck down or deemed to be unconstitutional.  Practitioners still must comply with it.

Read More »

On January 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rejected the assertion by the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and the Board of Veterans Appeals (the Board) that a service member who requested a discharge in Lieu of Court Martial after an unauthorized absence of 42 days was barred from seeking veteran’s benefits for an injury he had suffered on active duty.

Read More »
September 28, 2015 Blog PostUnprotected: Florida Appellate Court Holds Protective Safeguard Condition Is Not A Condition Precedent To Coverage

A Florida appellate court recently held that the breach of a protective safeguard condition did not automatically suspend coverage.

Read More »
June 02, 2015 Blog PostThe Florida Supreme Court Endorses Citizens' Immunity

The high court declared that Citizens is shielded from statutory bad-faith suits, and that bad faith is not a “willful tort,” which is a statutory exception to the immunity granted by the Florida Legislature.  The vindication was a long time coming for Citizens.  The Legislature created Citizens with a broad immunity that seemed clearly intended to shield it from bad-faith actions...

Read More »

Key Points

Author Practice Area