Case Name: INTEGON CORPORATION, Integon National Insurance Company, Integon General Insurance Company, Integon Indemnity Corporation and Integon Preferred Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Dean A. GORDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-04-09
Citations: 953 So. 2d 725
Docket Number: No. 1D05-3187
Parties: INTEGON CORPORATION, Integon National Insurance Company, Integon General Insurance Company, Integon Indemnity Corporation and Integon Preferred Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Dean A. GORDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellee.
Judges: ALLEN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 953
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
INTEGON CORPORATION, Integon National Insurance Company, Integon General Insurance Company, Integon Indemnity Corporation and Integon Preferred Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Dean A. GORDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellee.
No. 1D05-3187.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 9, 2007.
Katherine E. Giddings of Akerman Sen-terfitt, Tallahassee; Marcy Levine Aldrich, Christopher S. Carver, Ryan Roman and Nancy A. Copperthwaite of Akerman Sen-terfitt, Miami, for Appellants.
Thomas Porter Crapps of Crapps Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee; Elizabeth J. Ca-braser, Morris A. Ratner and Jahan C. Sagafi of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appellees.

Opinion:
' PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an interlocutory order granting appellee's motion for class certification. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const, (granting to district courts of appeal jurisdiction to "review interlocutory orders . to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court"); Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) (providing for appeal to the district courts of appeal of non-final orders that "determine . that a class should be certified"). Because the order fails to "separately state the findings of fact . upon which the determination [wa]s based" as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1), we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court comply with that provision. See, e.g., Seminole County v. Tivoli Orlando Assocs., Ltd., 920 So.2d 818, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Ford Motor Co. v. Morris, 904 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); City of Tampa v. McAfee, 896 So.2d 943, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). On remand, the trial court shall also rule on appellants' contention that appellee lacks standing, and provide an explanation of the rationale on which its decision is based, to permit intelligent review of the determination.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.