10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 635b
Insurance — Medical provider’s motion to strike insurer’s affirmative defenses that assert that medical provider is not entitled to collect additional sums for which it is seeking payment because it failed to properly complete claim forms and that medical provider was adequately paid for services provided is granted because assertions are not affirmative defenses but factual argument — Motion to strike affirmative defenses that allege that amounts not paid to medical provider are not due because medical provider is engaged in attempted theft of amount by fraud and attempted fraud is denied — Motion to strike affirmative defense that is denial of performance of conditions precedent already denied in answer is granted
NU-BEST DIAGNOSTIC LABS, INC., on behalf of Wayne Caffrey, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 02008488SC-NPC. UCN: 522002SC008488XXSCSC. May 21, 2003. William B. Blackwood, Judge. Counsel: R. Stanley Gipe, Clearwater. Robert D. Bartels, Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Orlando.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
THIS CAUSE was before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses of the Defendant. The motion was heard at the Pre-Trial Conference on May 20, 2003.
The Court grants the motion to strike affirmative defense number one. The matters raised therein amount to nothing more than an assertion that the Plaintiff is not entitled to collect the additional sums which the Plaintiff is seeking payment for due to the Plaintiff’s failure to properly complete claim forms resulting in a denial of Plaintiff’s claim for additional compensation and that the Plaintiff was paid adequately for the service that was actually performed and is not entitled to additional compensation. This is not an affirmative defense, but a factual argument that can be made to a jury.
The motion to strike affirmative defense number two is granted. The Defendant’s answer has already created that factual issue and it is not an affirmative defense.
The motion to strike affirmative defense number three is denied since it adequately alleges unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Florida Statutes.
The motion to strike affirmative defense number four is denied since this affirmative defense adequately alleges that the amounts the Defendant has not paid are not due because the Plaintiff is engaged in an attempted theft of that amount by fraud.
The motion to strike affirmative defense number five is denied as that affirmative defense adequately alleges that the additional amounts for which the Plaintiff seeks compensation are not due because of the Plaintiff’s attempted fraud in an effort to collect the additional amounts.
The motion to strike affirmative defense number six was withdrawn.
The motion to strike affirmative defense number eight is granted in that the defense amounts to nothing more than a denial of a condition precedent. The Defendant has already denied the Plaintiff’s performance of conditions precedent in its answer. The Defendant can raise these factual matters before the jury at trial.
* * *
