12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 556a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Sufficiency — Where court cannot determine from review of form demand letter and attachments amount of check insurer could have written to absolve itself of liability, medical provider has failed to satisfy condition precedent to filing PIP suit — Complaint dismissed with prejudice
CHAMBERS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a/a/o Angelica Manzano, Plaintiff(s), v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). Circuit Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Action. Case No. 05-CC-001161, Division “L”. March 18, 2005. Paul L. Huey, Judge. Counsel: Philip A. Friedman, Ramey Ramey & Kampf, P.A., Tampa. William K. Saron.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss having come on for hearing on February 28, 2005, and the Court, having reviewed the record, examined the pleadings, heard argument of counsel and researched applicable law, including the memoranda of the parties, FINDS, DECREES AND ADJUDGES:
1. That section 627.736(11), Florida Statutes, was amended effective August 1, 2003, to require a demand letter as a necessary condition precedent to the filing of a PIP case. In an effort to assist all potential parties and the courts, the legislature was very clear and specific in its requirements. It enacted a template that must be followed. The rationale behind the change was to more fully effectuate the PIP statute’s purpose, which is to get Florida drivers the health care they need without making them jump over the hurdle of a fault finding mechanism.
2. That the demand letter requirements are intended to be, and must be, strictly construed to effectuate their purpose. The bottom line of the requirement is to enable the person designated by the insurance company to look at, and only at, the four corners of one letter (and its statutorily authorized attachments), in order to fully understand its potential liability. Although this Court is not called upon here to fully explore what is adequate compliance with the demand letter requirement, it is evident that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the absolute minimum requirement of the statute. By solely reviewing the “form” demand letter at issue here (including its attachments), this Court cannot determine the amount of the check the Defendant could have written to absolve itself of liability. Plaintiff having failed to satisfy the necessary condition precedent, the Motion is granted.
3. That because compliance with section 627.736(11) is a necessary condition precedent to the filing of a PIP suit, the dismissal is with prejudice.
4. That Defendant raised other grounds in its Motion, but because of the foregoing analysis, the Court sees no need to rule on those issues.
* * *
