10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1020b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Exhaustion of benefits — Insurer not entitled to summary judgment based on exhaustion of benefits where evidence indicated that adequate benefits were available to pay medical bills at issue at time lawsuit was filed — There is no requirement in No-Fault statute that assignee request that benefits be placed in escrow in order to protect right to proceed against insurer following exhaustion of benefits — Filing of lawsuit provided insurer with notice of disputed bills — Insurer provided no legal basis to find that payment to separate corporate entity should be deemed equivalent of payment to plaintiff — Case shall proceed to trial on merits
BARTON LAKE HEALTHCARE CENTERS as assignee of Raul Moringlane, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant(s). County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2001-35522 COCI. October 27, 2003. H. Pope Hamrick, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Kimberly P. Simoes, Susan W. Tolbert, P.L., Daytona Beach. Mary Adkins, Ocala.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for consideration, and the Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised, the Court makes the following findings of fact and law:
The Defendant has moved for summary judgment based upon exhaustion of benefits to Bayside Healthcare Center on or about March 22, 2002. Based upon the memorandums of law, argument of counsel and record evidence, the Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
The evidence presented to this Court indicates that when the aforementioned lawsuit was filed, adequate benefits were available under Mr. Moringlane’s policy of insurance to pay the medical bills at issue. The Defendant has argued to this Court that the Plaintiff was required to request that benefits be placed in “escrow” in order to protect its right to proceed against the Defendant following the exhaustion of benefits. There is no requirement in the No-Fault statute which requires that the insured request that benefits be placed in escrow. Furthermore, the filing of the aforementioned lawsuit provided the Defendant with “notice” of the disputed bills.
The Defendant has provided this court with no legal basis to find that payment to Bayside Healthcare Center should be deemed the equivalent of payment to Barton Lake Healthcare Center. This Court finds that Bayside Healthcare Center and Barton Lake Healthcare are separate corporate entities. The fact that both entities have common officers and shareholders does not affect the corporate status of the individual entities.
Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that a material issue of fact exists regarding the denial of payment for the diagnostic testing performed by the Plaintiff on September 6, 2001, and the case shall proceed to trial on the merits.
* * *
