Source: http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180518_0005692.FL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:20:45+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Co.
Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Co.
AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Bob Leblanc, Judge.
Mark A. Nation and Paul W. Pritchard, of The Nation Law Firm, Longwood, for Appellant.
Andrew P. Rock and Julia G. Young, of The Rock Law Group, P.A., Maitland, for Appellee.
Chris W. Altenbernd, of Banker Lopez Gassler P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida ("AIIC") has filed a motion for rehearing and certification. AIIC has also filed a motion for rehearing en banc, which will be the subject of a separate order by this court. In his Response to these motions, Hugh Hicks contends, among other things, that AIIC improperly reargues the issue decided by this court. Hicks further contends that AIIC's arguments regarding the per curiam affirmed decision without written opinion in Zimmerman v. American Integrity Insurance, 212 So.3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (table decision), are improper.
Appellees' "motion does what [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.330(a) proscribes; it re-argues the merits of the case." Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So.2d 1100, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (citations omitted). "It appears that counsel are utilizing the motion for rehearing and/or clarification as a last resort to persuade this court to change its mind or to express their displeasure with this court's conclusion." Id at 1101. "This is not the purpose of [r]ule 9.330. It should be noted that the filing of [r]ule 9.330 motions should be done under very limited circumstances, it is the exception to the norm." Id (footnote omitted). "Motions for rehearing are strictly limited to calling an appellate court's attention-without argument-to something the court has overlooked or misapprehended. The motion for rehearing is not a vehicle for counsel or the party to continue its attempts at advocacy.'" Cleveland v. State, 887 So.2d 362, 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (quoting Goter v. Brown, 682 So.2d 155, 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)).
212 So.3d 1063, 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
Turning to the Zimmerman decision, AIIC makes it a feature of its motion for rehearing en banc. AIIC filed an appendix containing the briefs filed in Zimmerman in an attempt to support its argument that this court affirmed the same coverage issue and "seemingly reached the opposite conclusion" in a case with a similar fact pattern. Those briefs clearly reveal that Hicks is correct-not only does Zimmerman have no precedential value for the purpose of granting a motion for rehearing en banc, the arguments made by AIIC regarding that decision are improper.
In the opinion rendered in the current appeal, the issue we resolved is whether the policy exclusion applies to exclude coverage for loss that occurs during the first thirteen days of water seepage or leakage. For the reasons explained in the opinion, we held that the exclusion does not apply to that time period. The briefs in the Zimmerman appeal reveal that, while the insured attempted to raise this issue in that case, AIIC argued that the issue was waived and not reviewable. AIIC does not mention this fact in its motion. Yet AIIC improperly cites to Zimmerman in its motion to argue that this court seemingly reached the opposite decision regarding the same coverage issue.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.