HAZOURI, J.

Paul Robert and his wife Elizabeth ("the Roberts") sued the City of Hollywood, Florida ("the City"), after Paul was injured in an accident involving a city vehicle. Following a jury trial, the Roberts obtained three separate judgments: (1) $1,095,008.83 for Paul, (2) $90,000 for Elizabeth, and (3) cost judgment of $67,500, for a total of $1,250,508.83. Prior to entry of the judgments, the Roberts timely filed a motion to join the City's liability insurer, State National Insurance Company (State National), as a defendant, pursuant to section 627.4136(1), (4), Florida Statutes (2006).1

The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in entering amended final judgments adding State National without first determining whether the Roberts met the condition precedent of 627.4136(1) of obtaining a verdict against a person, or in this case the City, "who is an insured under the terms of the liability policy for a cause of action which was covered by such policy." For reasons discussed below we determine the trial court erred in the entry of the amended final judgment and reverse and remand for a determination as to whether the condition precedent has been met.

State National's liability policy provided the City with $1,000,000 in liability coverage, with the City carrying a $400,000 self-insured retention. Pursuant to section 768.28(5), Florida Statutes (2006)2, the City's sovereign immunity is waived up to $200,000, with the remainder of the judgment subject to a claims bill in the Florida legislature. State National argues in this appeal that it cannot be liable to settle judgments against its insured, the City, for amounts in excess of the City's limited waiver of sovereign immunity under section 768.28(5), or the City's $400,000 self-insured retention.

The Roberts and the City entered into a satisfaction of judgment:

The jury trial and subsequent proceedings leading to the amended final judgments were presided over by a retired judge sitting as a senior judge in place of the assigned judge for civil division CACE(21). In a rather unusual ruling the trial judge ruled that he had jurisdiction to enter the amended final judgments but specifically ruled that he was not determining State National's liability and expressly reserved this issue for further proceedings before the division judge which has yet to occur.

State National asserts that section 768.28(5) prohibits the City from being liable for any judgment in excess of $200,000 without the Roberts resorting to the claims bill process before the state legislature. State National further contends that its policy of insurance which is entitled "Public Entity Excess Liability Policy" requires it to pay all sums the City legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury caused by an accident and resulting from the ownership or maintenance of or use of a covered auto and therefore since the City cannot be legally liable in excess of $200,000 absent a successful claims bill there is no obligation for State National to pay. In addition, State National argues that since the policy calls for self-insured limit retention of $400,000, until the City pays $400,000, in essence exhausting the self-retention, it cannot be held responsible for any judgment or settlement.

The Roberts contend that the case in its present posture is not ripe for appellate review because the trial court specifically refused to determine State National's liability. Roberts argues that if this court were to reach the issue of State National's liability, section 768.28(5) permits the City to negotiate a settlement within its policy limits without resorting to a claims bill and that there is nothing in the State National policy which requires the City to exhaust its $400,000 of self-retained limits. Therefore State National is responsible for $852,508.83 which is the total amount of the amended final judgments less the $400,000 self-retained limit and is within State National's policy limits of $1,000,000.

We decline to decide the issue of whether there is liability on the part of State National by interplay of section 768.28(5) and the terms of its liability policy in the present posture of this case because the trial court failed to address the conditions precedent under section 627.4136(1). We reverse the entry of the amended final judgments as they apply to State National and remand to the lower court to make a determination of whether the Roberts can establish the condition precedent which would warrant the addition of State National to the amended final judgments.

Reversed and Remanded for Further Proceedings.

TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.