12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1185b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory judgment — Insurer’s obligation to provide PIP log on pre-suit request from medical provider — PIP log is not included in “information obtained by insurer” that must be produced on pre-suit demand from provider under statutes, but log is subject to discovery
DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL CENTER, INC., (As Assignee of Deisy Rodriguez), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 04-CC-0240469, Division “L”. September 22, 2005. Paul L. Huey, Judge. Counsel: Gale L. Young, Gale L. Young, P.A., Tampa. Dwayne E. Perser.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE, having come on before the Court on August 31, 2005 upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard the argument of counsel for the respective parties, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:FACTS
Plaintiff filed a three Count complaint alleging a breach of contract in Count I, and declaratory actions in Counts II and III as to Defendant’s duty to produce a “PIP Log.” The parties entered into a Stipulation dismissing Count II and III, with prejudice, and filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges in its single count that Defendant failed to pay personal injury protection benefits and interest, failed to provide a “PIP Log,” and failed to provide a sufficient explanation of benefits. Prior to suit, Plaintiff submitted a demand letter to Defendant, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 627.736(11), demanding in part, that Defendant pay certain benefits, and that Defendant produce an “unaltered/unredacted copy of the PIP Payout Ledger” (PIP Log) to Plaintiff. Defendant failed to pay the disputed benefits and failed to produce the “unaltered/unredacted copy of the PIP Payout Ledger.”
Plaintiff moves the court to grant a partial summary judgment based on Defendant’s failure to produce the PIP Log. In Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff argues that F.S. §627.736(6)(d) requires Defendant to produce a PIP Log to Plaintiff upon pre-suit demand. At the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff argued that F.S. § 627.4137 and F.S. § 627.7401 also support Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant violates Florida Statutes and the contract of insurance by failing to provide the PIP Log when demanded.
ANALYSIS
F.S. §627.736(6)(d) provided in pertinent part:
“The injured person shall be furnished, upon request, a copy of all information obtained by the insurer under the provisions of this section, and shall pay a reasonable charge, if required by the insurer”
F.S. §627.736(6)(d) (emphasis added).
When referring to the “information obtained by the insurer under the provision of this section,” the statutes is speaking to the information received by the insurer pursuant to any request made by the insurer under paragraph (6)(b). This does not include a “PIP Log” or any other information generated internally by the insurer.
The Court agrees with the analysis as set forth in New Hampshire Indemnity Co. v. Rural Metro Ambulance a/a/o William Zaniboni, (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct., July 18, 2005, Appellate Case no.: 04-72-AP; L.T. Case No. 03-SC-5724) [12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 941a]. Florida Statutes §627.736(6)(d); §627.4137 and F.S. §627.7401 do not provide a basis for the insured, or an assignee of the insured, to make a pre-suit demand for production of a “PIP Log,” nor do these statutes provide the basis for a cause of action for an insurer’s failure to honor a pre-suit demand for a “PIP Log.” As an aside, the Court notes that a PIP Log is subject to discovery in a PIP case. Failure to provide a PIP Log, if it exists, is thus subject to sanctions if not produced pursuant to the discovery rules.
It is therefore:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.
* * *
