Case Title: Coregis Insurance Company v. Mosquito Control Special Taxing District

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC02-311

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2002-11-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
____________
No. SC02-311
____________
COREGIS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,
vs.
MOSQUITO CONTROL SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT,
a/k/a THE FLORIDA KEYS MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT,
Appellee.
[November 27, 2002]
WELLS, J.
We have for review two questions of Florida law certified by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that are determinative of a cause
pending in that court and for which there appears to be no controlling precedent. 
Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit has certified the following questions to this Court:
(1)
Whether a petition before the Florida Monroe County Career
Service Counsel [sic] was a proceeding in a “court of law.”
(2)
If so, whether the petition was seeking “money damages.”
Mosquito Control Dist. of Fla. v. Coregis Ins. Co., 281 F.3d 1207, 1208 (11th Cir.
-2-
2002).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const.  We answer the first
certified question in the negative and decline to reach the second certified question.
FACTS
The facts of the case are as follows.  Appellee Mosquito Control Special
Taxing District, a/k/a The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (District),
purchased a public officials and employees liability insurance policy from appellant
Coregis Insurance Company (Coregis).  Thereafter, an employee of the District
filed a petition before the Monroe County Career Service Council (MCCSC),
alleging that the District improperly discriminated against him in employment
decisions on the basis of political affiliation.  That petition requested declaratory
judgments regarding the propriety of the contested employment decisions and an
award of attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the petition.  At the same
time, a related suit was filed in circuit court.  The District notified Coregis of both
the circuit court action and the petition before the MCCSC.  Coregis undertook to
defend the circuit court action but declined, on the grounds that the petition was
not covered by the policy, to provide a defense before the MCCSC.
The policy purchased by the District stated that "[a]s respects Claims for
Loss which is covered by this Policy . . . [Coregis] shall have the right and duty to
select counsel and to defend any Suit."  The policy further defined "claim" as "a
-3-
demand for Money Damages as of right," while "money damages" was further
defined as "monetary compensation for past harms or injuries."  The term "suit"
was also defined in the policy as "a proceeding in a court of law where Money
Damages may be awarded."
The District filed the present action against Coregis, seeking declaratory relief
to hold that the policy required Coregis to provide a legal defense for the claims
asserted in the petition and recovery of attorney fees paid by the District in its own
defense before the MCCSC.  The United States District Court of the Southern
District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the District, holding that
under the policy the MCCSC qualified as a court of law and that the petition was a
suit seeking money damages in the form of attorney fees.  Coregis appealed, and
the Eleventh Circuit certified to this Court the above questions regarding contract
interpretation under Florida law.  Mosquito Control Dist., 281 F.3d at 1207-08.
ANALYSIS
Regarding the first certified question concerning whether a petition before the
MCCSC is a proceeding in a court of law, we conclude that "court of law" has a
definite legal meaning expressly limited by article V, section 1 of the Florida
Constitution.  That section states in pertinent part:
The judicial power shall be vested in a supreme court, district
1.  The District argues that in Scholastic Systems, Inc. v. LeLoup, 307 So.
2d 166, 169-70 (Fla. 1974), this Court did not restrict its definition of a "court" to
article V courts in discussing issues concerning the Industrial Relations
Commission (IRC), the agency administering workers compensation claims. 
However, we note that in that decision we stated, "[W]e do not intend to imply that
the IRC is literally a 'court,' for Art. V, § 1, Fla. Const., expressly prohibits the
creation of any courts not expressly listed therein."  Id. at 170.
-4-
courts of appeal, circuit courts and county courts.  No other courts
may be established by the state, any political subdivision or any
municipality.
Therefore, we find that a petition before the MCCSC is not a proceeding before a
court of law under Florida law because the MCCSC is not a court as expressly set
forth in the Florida Constitution.  The MCCSC is an administrative agency
possessing only quasi-judicial powers.1
Accordingly, we answer the first certified question in the negative.  Because
our answer to that question is in the negative, our answer renders moot the question
regarding whether the petition before the MCCSC sought money damages.
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, LEWIS, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result only.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Certified Question of Law from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit - Case No. 01-15211
-5-
Joshua D. Lerner and Carol M. Tempesta of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Miami,
Florida,
for Appellant
Dirk M. Smits of Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A., Islamorada, Florida,
for Appellee