10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 827a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Exhaustion of benefits — Where benefits under policy were exhausted after payment of reduced amount for medical bill, no notice of assignment was provided to insurer prior to suit, no request to escrow benefits for disputed portion of bill was made to insurer prior to suit, and suit was not filed until two and a half years after exhaustion of benefits, medical provider is not entitled to any additional benefits under policy
NEUROSCIENCE DX, INC., a/a/o James Laut, Plaintiff, vs. DEERBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Civil Division. Case No. 02-3375-CO-42-JRA. August 11, 2003. William B. Blackwood, Judge. Counsel: Lefferts L. Mabie, III. Marc B. Nussbaum, Reynolds & Stowell, St. Petersburg.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment and/or Motion For Summary Disposition, and on Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment and Motion For 57.104 and 57.105 Attorney’s Fees and Costs, on June 17, 2003, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff provided services to James Laut on September 7, 1999.
2. That the relevant policy of insurance provided for $10,000.00 in PIP coverage with no deductible or Med Pay coverage.
2. The bill for the September 7, 1999 services was received by Deerbrook Insurance Company on September 16, 1999 and timely paid on October 4, 1999, at a reduced amount.
3. That benefits exhausted under the relevant policy of insurance on November 8,1999.
4. That Plaintiff filed suit on May 8, 2002, nearly two and a half years after benefits exhausted.
5. That no notice of an assignment was ever provided to Deerbrook Insurance Company by Plaintiff, prior to suit being filed.
6. That no request for benefits to be escrowed or set aside was ever made by Plaintiff to Deerbrook Insurance Company, prior to suit being filed.
7. The court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to any additional benefits under the subject policy.
8. The court has been advised of the case of Ruby Randal v. Allstate Insurance Company, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 301a, 6th Judicial Circuit (Appellate, 1996), and finds this case is distinguishable.
WHEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment is Granted.
The court reserves jurisdiction to determine Defendant’s Entitlement To Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment and/or Motion For Summary Disposition is hereby DENIED.
* * *
