PERSONAL INJURY CORNER
Writ of Prohibition
TED BABBITT
Truppman v . O ’ Connor ; SC 20-1225 ( August 25 , 2022 ) was an appeal from the Third District Court decision in O ’ Connor v .
Mince ; 306 So . 3d 259 ( Fla . 3d DCA 2020 ) which was a claim by an insured against her insurer when a pipe burst in her home causing substantial damage . The insurer removed the case to The United States District Court for the Southern District and there was a settlement of the claim , but not the potential attorney ’ s fees . The damages were $ 125,000.00 , but Mince argued that he was entitled to $ 828,056.00 in fees and as the basis for the demand stated that the insurer had agreed to pay the Claimant 100 % of her losses . The insurer denied that the Claimant had received 100 % of what she demanded and to prove its point referred to a mediation where the Claimant had apparently asked for more . Mince then claimed that opposing counsel representing the insurer had violated the confidentiality requirements applicable to mediation . The insurer and it ’ s attorney both moved to dismiss the case which was denied by The Circuit Court . Because of that denial the insurer and it ’ s attorney went to The Third District Court of Appeals with a Petition for Writ of Prohibition or Writ of Certiorari . They argued that the Circuit Court had exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the claim because it had been pled by a party without standing and had been resolved in Federal Court and thus that the opposing attorney was barred by collateral estoppel . The argument was that the attorney for the Claimant was not a “ party ” to the mediation and therefore did not have access to the remedies of Fla . Statute § 44.406 which provides for mediation confidentiality on behalf of the parties . The Third District granted the Writ of Prohibition to prevent the Court from proceeding on the claim , and the appeal was taken to The Supreme Court .
The Supreme Court held that prohibition is an extraordinary writ and extremely narrow by which a superior court may prevent an inferior court from exceeding its jurisdiction . In this case they asked the Third District to prevent the Circuit Court from exceeding its jurisdiction by considering the Motions to Dismiss .
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Third District , holding that it had consistently held that the purpose of a Writ of Prohibition is to prevent a court acting beyond the scope of its jurisdiction , not to correct an erroneous exercise of that jurisdiction . The Supreme Court held that the sole purpose of a Writ of Prohibition is to prevent the commission of a future act not to undo an act already performed .
At page 8 the Court held “ That is not how the writ of prohibition was used here . The Third District undid the trial court ’ s exercise of jurisdiction in denying Lexington ’ s and Cozen ’ s motions to dismiss on the basis of an affirmative defense . That matters because were we to permit litigants to seek prohibition in every case in which a trial judge denies a motion to dismiss based on collateral estoppel , res judicata , or any other affirmative defense , the writ could be used to end-run our rules on appeals generally and interlocutory appeals in particular . Florida ’ s district courts may review only those interlocutory orders allowed by the rules of this Court .”
The Supreme Court held an order granting a motion to dismiss is not a final order and ordinarily not appealable . The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Third District and remanded the case to the Third District with instruction to deny the claims for writ of prohibition and to adjudicate the argument for certiorari that had previously been declared moot . The Court held that the fact that the writ was used to revisit the trial court ’ s weighing of an affirmative defense made its issuance improper .
UPCOMING PBCBA CLE EVENTS
Friday , November 4 th 12:00 P . M . - 2:00 P . M . Live via Zoom Family Law CLE | What You Need to Know About QDRO Other Than Hiring an Expert Part II : Non-ERISA Plans Not Divided by QDRO
Thursday , November 10 th 12:00 P . M . - 2:00 P . M . Live via Zoom Paralegal Committee CLE | Do You Consider Diversity When Hiring a Mediator ?
Thursday , November 14 th SAVE THE DATE
Criminal Law CLE
Wednesday , November 18 th 12:00 P . M . - 2:00 P . M . Bar Office Business Lit CLE : How to Approach the New Corporate Deposition Process under Fed . R . Civ . P . 30 ( b )( 6 ) & Practical Guide for Corporate Depositions under Fla . R . Civ . P . 1.310
For more information , please visit : www . palmbeachbar . org / calendar
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 14