### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

THE FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,

a foreign corporation
, Petitioner
,

v.

JOHANNA O’ NEIL L and WILLIE J. ANDERSON ,

Respondents

.

No. 4D 14

- 2895

[ January 13, 2016 ]

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Donald W. Hafele , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502013CA004444MB

.
Mark S. Shapiro and Antonio D. Morin of Akerman LLP, Miami, for petitioner

.

Brett C. Powe ll of The Powell Law Firm, P.A., Palmetto Bay, for respondent Johanna O’Neil l

.

G ERBER , J

. The insurer appeals from: (1) the circuit court’s partial final judgment for the insured on her uninsured motorist claim after the insurer tendered its policy limits ; and (2) the court’s simultaneous order granting the insured’s motion to amend the complaint to add a first

- party bad faith claim. We treat the appeal as a peti tion for a writ of certiorari and deny the petition

. We deny the petition because the c ircuit court’s decisions

– at the time of its decision s

– did not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of the law

. See Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co
., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. 2010) ( “The departure from the essential require ments of the law necessary for granting a writ of certiorari is something m ore than a simple legal error.”).

A t the time of the circuit court’s decision s , we had not addressed the issue of whether an insured, after obtaining a favorable result on its2

benefits claim, may amend the complaint to add a first

- party bad faith claim instead of filing a new action on the bad faith claim.

Instead, the circuit court was faced with a split of authority from our sister courts on that issue. Compare Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill

. v. Rader , 132 So. 3d 941, 947

- 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ( denying insurer’s petition for writ of certiorari as to the circuit court’s order denying the insurer’s motion to enter a final judgment in accordance with the insurer’s confession of judgme nt on the insured’s underinsured motorist claim, and also granting the insured’s motion to add a bad faith claim )
, with Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Fridman , 117 So. 3d 16, 17

- 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ( trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion to enter a f inal judgment in accordance with the insurer’s confession of judgment
, and also reserving jurisdiction on the insured’s motion to amend his complaint to add a bad faith claim ; instead, the trial court should have entered the confessed judgment in the insur ed’s favor, and the insured should have pursued a subsequent bad faith action against the insurer )
, rev. granted , 145 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2014)

. Given the lack of binding authority from this court on the underlying issue , and given the split of authority bet ween our sister courts on the underlying issue , we cannot say that the circuit court’s apparent decision to follow the First District’s authority was a departure from the essential requirements of the law at the time of its decision

. Thus, because of that procedural posture, we are compelled to deny the petition for writ of certiorari and not decide the underlying issue until a final appealable judgment is entered.

Petition denied.

G ROSS and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.