STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

JENNIFER ANN HAWKINSON 

AND BRIAN REYNOLDS 

PETERS,

Appellees.

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. 1D16-2075

_____________________________/

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 Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, 

Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Benjamin E. Richard, William A. Bald and Raymond P. Reid, Jr., of Pajcic & 

Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.

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 that 
2

order awarding summary judgment to insureds on issue of entitlement to uninsured 

motorist coverage 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., DISSENTS 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 was 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 issue 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 

“sufficiently 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 only 
4

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 determine 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.