Case Name: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Helen A. BRUNS, etc., Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-01-12
Citations: 443 So. 2d 959
Docket Number: No. 63501
Parties: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Helen A. BRUNS, etc., Respondent.
Judges: ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, OVER-TON and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 443
Pages: 959–962

Head Matter:
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Helen A. BRUNS, etc., Respondent.
No. 63501.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 12, 1984.
Joseph S. Kashi of Conrad, Scherer & James, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Richard A. Kupfer of Cone, Wagner, Nu-gent, Johnson, Hazouri & Roth, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review of Travelers Insurance Company v. Bruns, 429 So.2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), on the ground of direct and express conflict with P & H Vehicle Rental and Leasing Corp. v. Garner, 416 So.2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), and Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Summers, 404 So.2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
This case arose from an action against Bruns (respondent) and her alleged insurer, Travelers Insurance Company (petitioner). Insurance coverage was disputed and the trial court issued a summary judgment against petitioner that coverage existed. Petitioner sought review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). The district court of appeal held that the summary judgment of insurance coverage did not determine the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief and, thus, was nonappealable under rule 9.130. In so holding, the district court aligned itself with the first and third district courts of appeal decisions in U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Sloan, 410 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Ogur v. Mogel, 390 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The district court recognized and certified express conflict with Summers and Garner. For the reasons below, we approve the district court decision and disapprove Summers and Garner.
Rule 4.2, Interlocutory Appeals, the 1962 predecessor to rule 9.130, authorized review of interlocutory orders which granted partial summary judgment on liability in civil action. This rule was interpreted to permit appeals from partial summary judgments on the issue of insurance coverage. Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. West, 260 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), reversed on other grounds, 276 So.2d 31 (Fla.1973); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 261 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Petitioner concedes that the wording of the present rule differs from its predecessor, but asserts that we should adopt Summers and Garner and permit continued review of such orders, because this would vindicate the intent of the framers of the present rule. Petitioner's argument is contrary to the plain meaning of the rule and of the committee notes to the 1977 revision. The resolution of a coverage issue concerning an alleged insured and insurer clearly does not determine the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief. The committee notes also state that the revised rule substantially alters current practice. The thrust of rule 9.130 is to restrict the number of appealable nonfinal orders. The theory underlying the more restrictive rule is that appellate review of nonfinal judgments serves to waste court resources and needlessly delays final judgment. We approve the decision of the district court and disapprove Summers and Garner.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, OVER-TON and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
SHAW, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
ADKINS, J., concurs in result only.
McDONALD, J., dissents.