final, it could not be amended to add the insurer as a party). Sound argues that this court should dismiss Nova’s petition for lack of jurisdiction because the order impleading Nova as a third party is not appealable. Sound also claims that Nova will not suffer irreparable harm by its impleader in the proceed•ings supplementary. However, as Nova argues, Sound treats impleading a party and joining a party as if they are interchangeable. They are not. Impleader of a third party in proceedings supplementary “does not in and of itself imply liability on the part of the impleaded third parties.” Instead, it provides the party “with an opportunity to raise them defenses and protect their interests consistent with genuine due process.” Mejia v. Ruiz, 985 So.2d 1109, 1112-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). However, Nova does not challenge the order
holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer holding that a closing protection letter offering to indemnify a mortgage company was not an insurance contract where although issued by an insurance company there was no distribution of the risk holding that notice and a hearing were required before the commissioner of insurance could require an insurance company to change its definition of at fault in order to secure approval of an increase in insurance rates holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract recognizing that an insurance company may piesent defenses at the proceedings supplementary