STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellant,

v. JENNIFER ANN HAWKINSON AND BRIAN REYNOLDS PETERS , Appellee s . IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2075

_____________________________/ Opinion filed August 11, 2016. An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Tyrie W. Boyer , Judge

. Rhonda B. Boggess and Gina P. Grimsley, of Taylo r, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville , for Appellant. Benjamin E. Richard, William A. Bald and Raymond P. Reid, Jr., of Pajcic & Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville , for Appellee s .

PER CURIAM. Appellant’s motion to determine jurisdiction is granted. The Court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review the order on appeal. See Workmen’s
Auto Ins. Co. v. Franz , 24 So. 3d 638, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding that2 order awarding summary judgment to insureds on issue of entitlement to uninsured motorist cov erage was not a partial final judgment where related claim for uninsured motorist benefits remained pending). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied as moot. ROBERTS, C.J. and ROWE , J. , CONCUR; MAKAR, J., D ISSENTS WITH OPINION

.3 MAKAR, J., dissenting. After a separate bench trial, a final judgment was entered on the discrete claim in this case that the insurer was required to provide coverage under its policy for injuries occurring to the plaintiff, who w as determined to be a “relative” under her parents’ policy. Pending is a separate trial on liability and damages against the driver, and possible recovery against the insurer under the policy. The insurer appeals, claiming the final judgment is appealable as a “partial final judgment” under Rule 9.110(k), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. (“ A partial final judgment, other than one that disposes of an entire case as to any party, is one that disposes of a separate and distinct cause of action that is not interdependent with other pleaded claims.”). Because the discrete issue of coverage is separate and distinct from the remaining claim for damages, jurisdiction under subsection (k) exists. On somewhat similar facts, the Second District has found this issu e to be a close question, holding that jurisdiction was lacking because of the procedural posture in that case; because the claims for insurance coverage and damages were included in the same count, the court viewed the coverage and damages issues as “suff iciently interrelated so that this order cannot be reviewed as a partial final judgment.” Workmen’s Auto Ins. Co. v. Franz , 24 So. 3d 638, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). But had a declaratory judgment action “been filed separately” to resolve the coverage issue, the court concluded that jurisdiction would exist. Id. (“We can only4 explain that the procedural posture of this case is different.”). It makes little sense to base jurisdiction on whether two lawsuits are filed versus one; the better approach is to determ ine the extent of dependency between the coverage and damages claims. Here, the coverage and damages issues were deemed to be independent matters, so much so that a separate bench trial was held first on the former and a discrete “final judgment” entered; no overlap exists between the issues and evidence, each focusing on entirely different issues. Accordingly, the insurer’s appeal should be allowed to proceed.