Opinion

School Board of Broward County v. City of Coral Springs

  • 187 So. 3d 287
  • 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3124
  • 2016 WL 805300
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Mar 2, 2016
Status
Published
On the bench
Ciklin, Per Curiam, Taylor
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 59.4%

The opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, a State Agency or Political

Subdivision of the State of Florida,

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS, as Assignee of John Malvin,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-2213

[March 2, 2016]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Thomas M. Lynch, IV, Judge; L.T.

Case No. 14-008726 CACE (05).

Nicolette N. John of Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A., Hollywood, for

appellant.

Warren Brown and Jorge A. Pena of Brown & Pena, P.A., Hollywood,

for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The School Board of Broward County (School Board) appeals a trial

court order which denied its motion for summary judgment, determining

as a matter of law that it is not entitled to sovereign immunity. This

portion of the non-final order is appealable. Fla. R. App. P.

9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi).1 As to that ruling, we affirm.

1 The trial court also ruled on assignability of the claim against the School

Board and the timeliness of the lawsuit against it given the provisions of section

440.39(4), Florida Statutes (2011). We decline to consider the arguments as to

these claims, however, as our jurisdiction does not extend to them. They are

not independently appealable under any of the provisions of Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.130, and the appellate courts are without jurisdiction to

review them simply because they are included in the same order along with a

ruling which is appealable. See RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d

1002, 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding that where a non-final order subject to

review under Rule 9.130 contains other rulings which are not independently

John Malvin (Malvin) is a police officer employed by the City of Coral

Springs (City). He was operating a motorcycle in the course of his

employment in August 2011 when he had an accident involving a school

bus owned by the School Board. The City paid him worker’s

compensation benefits, and he assigned his claims to the City. The

assignment provided that the City would recover from any judgment or

settlement with the School Board and other defendants as

reimbursement for worker’s compensation benefits previously paid to

Malvin. Once reimbursement was satisfied, any remaining judgment or

settlement would inure to Malvin. In exchange for the assignment, the

City and worker’s compensation carrier agreed to sue the School Board

and the individual defendant on Malvin’s behalf. Malvin was to be

indemnified from any liability, cost or expense arising from the lawsuit.

In May 2014, the City, as assignee of Malvin, sued the School Board

and sent a letter to the School Board and the Florida Department of

Financial Services advising them of the personal injury claim they

brought “as subrogee of John Malvin.” The School Board argued in

defense that the action was barred by sovereign immunity and,

alternatively, failure to comply with the presuit notice requirements of

section 768.28, Florida Statutes (2011) for waiver of sovereign immunity

in tort actions. It filed a motion for final summary judgment on these

and other issues.

No factual issues were in dispute. The trial court’s order denying

summary judgment turned exclusively on questions of law. Review is de

novo. Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071, 1074 (Fla.

2001); Eco-Tradition, LLC v. Pennzoil Quaker State Co., 137 So. 3d 495,

496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

We reject the School Board’s challenge to the sufficiency of the notice

the City provided pursuant to section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (2011).

This is the only sovereign immunity issue the School Board has raised in

its initial brief. The notice requirement is intended to give the State and

its agencies adequate notice of claims filed against them and to provide

them with time to investigate and respond. Aitcheson v. Fla. Dep’t of

Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 117 So. 3d 854, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA

2013) (citing Cunningham v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 782 So. 2d

913, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citing Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Reyes, 688 So.

2d 311 (Fla. 1996))). While notice is statutorily required, its form and

appealable, they do not “tag along” for purposes of jurisdiction and review by

the appellate court). See also Swartz v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 97 So. 3d 267 (Fla.

5th DCA 2012).

2

content are not specified in the statute. Aitcheson, 117 So. 3d at 856

(citing LaRiviere v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 889 So. 2d 972, 974 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2004)). The trial court did not err in concluding that the City

provided sufficient information to the School Board and the Florida

Department of Financial Services to put them on notice of the accident,

its time, location, the injuries suffered and that a claim was being made.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.