# Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n

> Supreme Court of Florida · November 15, 2012 · 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 691

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4797569

## Case

- **Full name:** CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, etc. v. SAN PERDIDO ASSOCIATION, INC., etc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** November 15, 2012
- **Citations:** 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 691; 104 So. 3d 344; 2012 Fla. LEXIS 2354; 2012 WL 5517204
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Canady
- **Judges:** Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince
- **Cited by:** 96 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4797569

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that before a court may grant certiorari relief, “the petitioner must establish the following three elements: ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the 3 remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on p…
- holding that “the district courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for certiorari based on a public entity’s claim that it is entitled to immunity based on the particular facts of the lawsuit brought against it”
- holding that before certiorari can be used to review non-final orders, the appellate court must focus on the threshold jurisdictional question of whether there is a material injury that cannot be corrected on appeal

## Opinion text

CANADY, J.,
dissenting.
I would adopt the cogent reasoning of Judge Wetherell’s dissent and hold that Citizens Property Insurance Corporation is entitled to certiorari relief because it is statutorily immune from suit on the bad faith claim asserted by San Perdido Association. I would reframe the certified question as follows: “Is the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the assertion of immunity under section 627.351(6)(s)(l), Florida Statutes (2009), reviewable by cer-tiorari?” And I would answer the re-framed certified question in the affirmative.
*359 I dissent, therefore, from the majority’s decision, which does not afford Citizens the full benefit of its statutory immunity.
POLSTON, C.J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4797569. Public record. Not legal advice.