28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 449b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806CELT
Insurance — Appeals — Certiorari — Non-final orders — Denial of motion to consolidate — Fact that denial of motion to consolidate cases will require maintenance of independent actions is not irreparable harm meriting certiorari review — No abuse of discretion in denying motion to consolidate cases involving different patients, different allegations of medical necessity, different policies, and different exigencies justifying out-of-network claims
CELTIC INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a AMBETTER FOR SUNSHINE HEALTH, Petitioner, v. DIGESTIVE MEDICINE HISTOLOGY LAB, LLC, et al., Respondents. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2019-299-AP-01, consolidated with 2019-300-AP-011. July 29, 2020. Counsel: Allen P. Pegg, Hogan Lovells, US LLP, for Petitioner. Douglas Stein and Kenneth J. Dorchak, for Respondents.
(Before TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA, JJ. )
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
(PER CURIAM.) We dismiss these petitions for writ of certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. We find that the irreparable harm alleged — that maintaining independent actions will result in less efficiency and additional cost — is insufficient to merit certiorari review. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly S691a].
Even if we reached the merits, we would deny this petition. Rule 1.270(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:
(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
(emphasis added) The rule is discretionary, not mandatory. The 15 small claims cases pending in the trial courts allegedly2 involve different patients, different allegations of medical necessity, different policies and different exigencies justifying out-of-network insurance claims. The trial court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate. While the cases have issues in common, the “mere possibility of different juries arriving at a different conclusion on a fact common to two lawsuits does not alone mandate consolidation.” See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Bonham, 886 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D2642a]. See also Commercial Carriers Corp. v. Kelley, 920 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D441c] (even where separate actions arise out of the same accident, consolidation is not mandated).
Finally, Respondents move for attorneys’ fees.3 Pursuant to Section 768.79, Florida Statutes, we provisionally grant entitlement to attorneys’ fees, conditioned upon the trial court determining the sufficiency of the proposal for settlement and on the Respondents prevailing below.
Petition dismissed. (TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA, JJ., CONCUR.)
__________________
1Lower Court Case Numbers:
2019-010221-SP-23, 2019-010227-SP-23, 2019-010230-SP-23, 2019-010231-SP-23, 2019-010233-SP-23, 2019-012172-SP-23, 2019-012193-SP-23, 2019-012204-SP-23, 2019-012210-SP-23, 2019-012223-SP-23, 2019-012486-SP-23, 2019-012487-SP-23, 2019-012489-SP-23, 2019-012501-SP-23, 2019-012502-SP-23
2The actions are in their infancy below. No discovery has been done and the Defendant has not yet answered the complaints.
3We do not opine on whether the Respondents could be entitled to attorney’s fees under sections 627.428(1) or 641.28, Florida Statutes.
