Case Name: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Elizabeth Shea MILLER, Appellee; Ruth OLIPHANT, as personal representative of the Estate of Donald E. Oliphant, Deceased, Appellant, v. Elizabeth Shea MILLER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-11-20
Citations: 688 So. 2d 935
Docket Number: Nos. 95-1851, 95-1968
Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Elizabeth Shea MILLER, Appellee. Ruth OLIPHANT, as personal representative of the Estate of Donald E. Oliphant, Deceased, Appellant, v. Elizabeth Shea MILLER, Appellee.
Judges: STONE and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 688
Pages: 935–937

Head Matter:
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Elizabeth Shea MILLER, Appellee. Ruth OLIPHANT, as personal representative of the Estate of Donald E. Oliphant, Deceased, Appellant, v. Elizabeth Shea MILLER, Appellee.
Nos. 95-1851, 95-1968.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov. 20, 1996.
Opinion Denying Rehearing Feb. 5,1997.
As Amended on Grant of Clarification March 17, 1997.
Sharon Lee Stedman of Sharon Lee Sted-man, PA., and Thomas G. Kane, Orlando, for Appellant-State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
David B. Pakula of Kubicki Draper, Miami, for Appellant-Ruth Oliphant.
Jack Gale and Kendall Phillips of Phillips & Gale, Port St. Lucie,'for appellee.
Louis K. Rosenbloum of Levin, Middle-brooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, PA., Pensacola, for Amicus Curiae-Aeademy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
George A. Vaka of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A, Tampa, for Amicus Curiae-Florida Defense Lawyers Association.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal an order granting a • new trial in these companion eases which we consolidate. After oral argument, we discovered that the trial court had no authority to enter the order, and we are thus required to reverse.
After being awarded what she apparently felt was an inadequate amount of damages by the jury, plaintiff moved for a new trial which was denied. The same day her motion for new trial was denied, we issued our opinion in Krawzak v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 660 So.2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), approved, 675 So.2d 115 (Fla.1996), holding that juries should be made aware that the insurer is a party in UM cases. Since the trial court had ruled in this case that the jury would not be advised about the UM insurer, plaintiff moved for a rehearing of the order denying the motion for new trial. The court granted that motion and ordered a new trial, citing Krawzak. These appeals are from that order.
The motion for rehearing of the order denying the motion for new trial was not authorized by our rules, and the trial court was thus without authority to consider it. Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Admin., 315 So.2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Huffman v. Little, 341 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 949 (Fla.1977); Volumes in Value, Inc. v. Buy Mail Int'l, Inc., 177 So.2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). We therefore reverse the order granting the new trial and remand for entry of a final judgment.
STONE and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.