26 Fla. L. Weekly D1886b
810 So. 2d 514
NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 27 Fla. L. Weekly D551e
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Error to hold that insurer could not defend against PIP claims of its insureds because insurer did not timely obtain reasonable proof that medical procedures were unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to motor vehicle accidents — Although trial court rightly perceived conflict between district courts on issue, court should have followed Fifth District’s decision
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. NU-BEST DIAGNOSTIC LABS, INC., etc., Appellees. 5th District. Case Nos. 5D00-987; 5D00-1387 & 5D00-1482. Opinion filed August 3, 2001. 9.160 Appeal from the County Court for Orange County, Jerry L. Brewer, Judge. Counsel: Tracy Raffles Gunn of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Stephan W. Carter of Vose, Blau & Hayes, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellees.
(THOMPSON, C.J.) This consolidated appeal is based on orders certified to be of great public importance by the county court. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company seeks review of orders determining that it may not defend against personal injury protection (PIP) claims of Nationwide’s insureds because Nationwide did not timely obtain reasonable proof that the medical procedures were unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to the motor vehicle accidents. The various insureds in the consolidated cases assigned their rights under their PIP policies to appellee Nu-Best Diagnostic Labs. This court has jurisdiction.1
On the merits, we reverse the judgments in favor of Nu-Best. See Gurney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 5D00-3775 (Fla. 5th DCA July 6, 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D1658]; Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 694 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The trial court rightly perceived a conflict between our opinion in Jones and the opinion of the third district in Perez v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 746 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), rev. granted, United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 767 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2000). The court chose to follow Perez but should have followed Jones. See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992).
REVERSED AND REMANDED. (PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(4)(A).
