31 Fla. L. Weekly D2675a
Insurance — Circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, departed from essential requirements of law in concluding that medical provider was entitled as matter of law to recover from insurer the reasonable value of services rendered to insurer’s insured based on quantum meruit theory, where provider did not plead, or otherwise brief during appeal from a dismissal order, that it was entitled to recover from insurer based upon a quasi-contract or quantum meruit theory
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. WILLIAM V. TEJEIRO, M.D., P.A., etc., Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D06-1829. L.T. Case No. 01-11444. Opinion filed October 25, 2006. A Writ of Certiorari to the appellate division of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Arthur L. Rothenberg, Thomas S. Wilson, Jr., and Maxine Cohen Lando, Judges. Counsel: Fowler White Burnett, and June Galkoski Hoffman; Michael J. Neimand, for petitioner. Ginsberg and Schwartz, and Arnold R. Ginsberg; Jonathan R. Friedland; Richard Patino, for respondent.
(Before GREEN, RAMIREZ, SUAREZ, JJ.)
(RAMIREZ, J.) United Automobile Insurance Company, Inc. petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking to quash an order of the circuit court acting in its appellate capacity which concluded that respondent William V. Tejeiro, M.D., P.A., a medical provider/assignee, was entitled as a matter of law to recover from United the reasonable value of the services it rendered to United’s insured based on a quantum meruit theory, irrespective of United’s pending affirmative defenses. We grant the petition because the circuit court’s order exceeded the relief sought.
As respondent Tejeiro appropriately concedes, Tejeiro did not plead, or otherwise brief below during the appeal from a dismissal order, that it was entitled to recover payment from United for medical services rendered to United’s insured five (5) months after the accident based upon a quasi-contract or quantum meruit theory. On this basis, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000) (relief may be granted if it is determined that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law which resulted in a miscarriage of justice).
We therefore grant the petition, quash the order under review, with directions to remand to the county court to reinstate the Complaint and to conduct further proceedings on the merits in accordance with the issues as raised in the pleadings, and to grant United’s motion for attorney’s fees conditioned upon its ultimate success on the merits with respect to recovery under the policy.
Certiorari granted; order quashed; and remanded with directions.
