26 Fla. L. Weekly D1999cNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 27 Fla. L. Weekly D88b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Appeals — Certiorari — Petition for writ of certiorari to review circuit court opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer based on conclusion that insured was not prejudiced by insurer’s payment of only that portion of medical expenses it deemed reasonable and necessary because insured suffered no damages until sued by a medical provider for unpaid amount — Where established law provided no controlling precedent, circuit court cannot be said to have violated a clearly established principle of law — Argument that PIP statute is violated by policy provision that requires injured person to be sued by medical provider before he can contest the reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses presents matter of statutory construction unsuitable for limited standard of review of certiorari proceeding — County courts encouraged to certify issue
Quashed at 28 Fla. L. Weekly S287a
Circuit court order at 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 760a
VERON CARAVAKIS, Petitioner, v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D00-4027. Opinion filed August 15, 2001. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Pinellas County; sitting in its appellate capacity. Counsel: Tony Griffith of Tanney, Eno, Tanney, Griffith & Ingram, P.A., Clearwater, for Petitioner. Anthony J. Parrino of Reynolds & Stowell, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Respondent.
(BLUE, Chief Judge.) Veron Caravakis, plaintiff in the county court, seeks review of an order by the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity. The order affirmed a summary judgment entered by the county court in favor of Allstate Indemnity Company, defendant below. Because the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law, we must deny certiorari relief.
Caravakis is insured by Allstate and sued the insurance company, alleging that it failed to pay PIP benefits that were due. The PIP policy provided that Allstate may refuse to pay for medical expenses that it deemed to be “unreasonable or unnecessary,” but it would defend and indemnify Caravakis if he was sued by a medical provider for the amount Allstate refused to pay. Because Allstate had paid on the claims, albeit only the amount it deemed reasonable and necessary, the county court granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment. A one-judge panel of the circuit court affirmed, concluding that Caravakis suffered no damages until sued by a medical provider.
To determine whether certiorari relief should be granted, this court applies a two-part test: first, whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process; and second, whether it departed from the essential requirements of the law, which is a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 528 (Fla. 1995). When established law provides no controlling precedent, the circuit court cannot be said to have violated a clearly established principle of law. Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So. 2d 979, 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
We have found no appellate cases repudiating the policy endorsement at issue in this case, and Caravakis has cited none in his petition. Even though we might agree that the PIP statute is violated by a policy provision that requires an injured person to be sued by his medical provider before he can contest the reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses, this argument presents a matter of statutory interpretation unsuitable for the limited standard of review in a certiorari proceeding. See Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 683 (Fla. 2000) (holding that certiorari should not be used when a district court merely disagrees with the circuit court’s interpretation of the applicable law). We are therefore required to deny the petition because Caravakis has failed to establish the threshold requirements for certiorari relief.
Although we deny relief in this case, we write to encourage the county courts to certify the issue to this court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4)(A) because it appears that there are conflicting decisions at the county court level on the validity and enforceability of this provision.
Petition denied. (WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.)
