or a breach subject to set off raises the specter of piecemeal litigation that the requirements of Indiana Trial Rules 56 and 54 were meant to avoid.” Id. We concluded that the order did not possess “the requisite degree of finality to completely dispose of a single substantive claim in order to be properly certifiable.” Id. As a result, we dismissed the appeal. Id. Here, the trial court’s order on partial summary judgment against Reiswerg addressed liability only and left issues of damages and allocation of fault for trial. As in Rameo, the order did not completely dispose of a single substantive claim and was not properly certifiable as a final, appealable judgment. See, e.g., Cardiology Associates of Northwest Indiana, P.C. v. Collins, 804 N.E.2d 151, 154-155 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the order was an interlocutory order,
holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable