12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 351a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Exhaustion of policy limits — There is no provision in PIP statute for escrow of benefits — Court cannot enforce demand for escrow of benefits — Insurer cannot be required to pay more than policy limits unless there is bad faith on part of insurer
COMPREHENSIVE PHYSICIAN SERVICES as Assignee of ALLEN WRIGHT, Plaintiff, vs. THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF MIDWEST, Defendant. Circuit Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 2000-19769-SC, Division I. COMPREHENSIVE PHYSICIAN SERVICES as Assignee of ALLEN WRIGHT, Plaintiff, vs. THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF MIDWEST, Defendant. Case No. 2001-11739-SC, Division H. January 20, 2005. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge. Counsel: Laura A. Olson, for Plaintiff. Karen A. Barnett, Barnett & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on December 8, 2004 upon the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to consolidated case numbers 2000-19769-SC and 2001-11739-SC and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise advised in the issues, hereby finds as follows:
1. There is no provision in the PIP Statute for an escrow of benefits, and had the Florida Legislature intended that there be such a provision it could have drafted it into the law.
2. That based upon the foregoing, the Court cannot enforce something that is either not constitutionally mandated or statutorily mandated, and thereby finds that any demand for escrow is not authorized and is irrelevant.
3. Further, the Court finds that an insured is only going to have the limits of his/her policy paid out, and unless there is bad faith on the part of the insurer, the insurance company can not be required to pay more than the benefits.
WHEREFORE, it is .hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
l. That Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED and that this Motion for Summary Judgment is in fact a Final Summary Judgment as to case number 2000-19769-SC.
2. That the Court shall reserve jurisdiction as to Defendant’s claim for attorneys fees and costs pursuant to §57.105 and Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement.
3. That this matter shall proceed under case number 2001-11739-SC, as that case has not been disposed of by way of the Court’s ruling.
* * *
