5D04-2752 State Farm v. Bonham

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 5D04-2752.op

Case Date: 11/15/2004

Plaintiff: 5D04-2752 State Farm

Defendant: Bonham

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004
STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. 5D04-2752
SUZANNE BONHAM, ADVANTA MORTGAGE, ETC., ET AL.,
Respondents. ___________________________________/
Opinion filed November 19, 2004

Petition for Certiorari Review of
Order from the Circuit Court for
Orange County,
Jay Paul Cohen, Judge.

Lee Craig and David I. Wynne of
Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP,
Tampa, for Petitioner.

Kevin Knight of Debeaubien, Knight,
Simmons, Mantzaris & Neal LLP,
Orlando, and Gerald R. Saffioti, Jr.,
of Gerald R. Saffioti, Jr., Esq. LLC,
Winter Park, for Respondent,
Suzanne Bonham.

ORFINGER, J.

State Farm Florida Insurance Company seeks certiorari review of an order denying its
motion to consolidate two civil actions. The two civil actions have a common plaintiff, Suzanne
Bonham, but different defendants. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition.
Ms. Bonham purchased a house that she claims had concealed structural damage.
As a result, she filed a lawsuit alleging that the seller, Advanta Mortgage Corp., and the
broker, Arvida Realty Services, failed to disclose material information about the home, and actively concealed damage to the residence caused by sinkhole activity. 1 In a separate action, Bonham filed suit against State Farm, seeking a declaration of her rights under a homeowner's insurance policy issued by State Farm, and damages. State Farm denied coverage based on its belief that there was no sinkhole on the property, and that any damage was the result of earth movement unrelated to sinkhole activity, and, thus, not covered under the policy.
State Farm then filed a motion to consolidate the two cases, and asserted that the actions concern a common question of fact, and consolidation would avoid redundant judicial labor. State Farm also argued that consolidation would avoid the possibility of inconsistent verdicts. After the trial court denied consolidation, State Farm sought certiorari review here.
An order denying a motion to consolidate is reviewable by certiorari. However, such a ruling falls within the sound discretion of the trial court, and should not be disturbed except where an abuse of discretion is shown. The mere possibility of different juries arriving at a different conclusion on a fact common to two lawsuits does not alone mandate consolidation. See Friedman v. DeSota Park N. Condo. Ass

Download 5D04-2752.op.pdf