When an insured or insurer finds the decision of a trial court to be wrongly decided in an insurance claims dispute, the party that finds the outcome objectionable might contemplate an appeal. However, there are special procedural requirements that must be satisfied to pursue an appeal. One legal issue that must be addressed to successfully appeal a decision involves the question of “ripeness.” A recent case, Fl. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Peacock’s Excavating Serv., Inc., addressed this issue in ruling on whether a Partial Final Judgment on an insurer’s duty to defend that did not address the duty to indemnify constituted an appealable order.
General contractors on a construction project filed an equitable subrogation lawsuit against Peacock Excavating for allegedly defective site work. Peacock pursued a claim for coverage under six commercial general insurance liability policies, which the insured issued to Peacock over several years. The insurer contested the existence and scope of the policies but defended Peacock under a reservation of rights. Both parties sought a declaratory judgment on the issue of coverage. The issue at the heart of the dispute involved whether the insurance coverage was triggered at the time of actual injury or the point that the injury was manifested.
The court considered whether the Partial Final Judgment which found a duty to defend but did not reach a conclusion on the duty to indemnify constituted a Partial Final Judgment that was an appealable order. The court applied a three part test based on the following factors: (1) whether the Partial Final Judgment disposed of a “separate and distinct” cause of action that was independent of other pleaded claims; (2) whether any parties were removed from the action; and (3) whether the claims could be disposed of based on the same or different facts. The overall objective of this test is to avoid piecemeal litigation of claims that are so legally interrelated that they essentially involve the same transaction.
In this case, the question of the duty to defend and duty to indemnify involved facts and issues that were part of a single count involving a single set of relevant individuals and circumstances. In applying each element of the test, the court concluded:
- There was only a single cause of action regardless of whether the issue was the duty to defend or the duty to indemnify;
- No parties were eliminated from the action by the lower court ruling; and
- The same facts and issues were relevant to determination of a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify.
Based on this analysis, the court determined that the matter was not ripe for appeal because the Final Partial Judgment did not constitute an appealable order. This case demonstrates the complex procedural issues involved in pursuing an appeal in an insurance claims dispute. These types of subtle legal standards can have a profound impact, so an insured should retain an experienced Florida insurance attorney when pursuing litigation against an insurer.
Our insurance claims law firm invites you to contact us if you are having difficulties with your insurance company. Miami bad faith insurance claims lawyer J.P. Gonzalez-Sirgo handles property damage claims against insurance companies in Miami and throughout Florida. The Law Firm of J.P. Gonzalez-Sirgo, P.A. offers free consultations and case evaluations. No Recovery, No Lawyer Fees. Call 305-461-1095 or Toll Free 1-866-71-CLAIM.