11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 237b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Claimant who filed suit against insurer for unpaid benefits and who submitted to insurer a “demand letter” was not required to submit a new demand letter before filing amended complaint seeking additional unpaid benefits arising from same accident but not originally specified in the demand letter
LARRY THOMPSON, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Small Claims Court. Case No. 16-2003-SC-010602. Division K. January 9, 2004. Sharon H. Tanner, Judge. Counsel: Hanton Walters. D. Scott Craig, Farah, Farah & Abbott, P.A., Jacksonville.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard before me and the Court having heard the argument of both counsel, and having considered relevant Florida law, finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on October 8, 2003, seeking unpaid No-Fault Benefits, arising from Plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident of May 5, 2003.
2. Prior to filing the lawsuit, Plaintiff submitted to Defendant a “demand letter”, pursuant to Florida Statutes §627.736(11)(a) (2003).
3. After suit was filed, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, seeking additional unpaid No-Fault Benefits, not originally specified in the “demand letter”, but also arising from Plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident of May 5, 2003.
4. Based on the unambiguous language of F.S. §627.736(11)(a) (2003), Plaintiff is not required to submit a new “demand letter” to Defendant, as the condition precedent to the filing of the original action has already been met. An amendment to a complaint does not constitute a separate action for benefits. Once an action for No-Fault Benefits is filed, and conditions precedent met, it is unnecessary to send further “demand letters”, and possibly, file separate lawsuits, when a plaintiff is simply amending the amount of damages in the complaint.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED.
* * *
