12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 478b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit discovery — Insurer is required to provide copy of policy, declarations page and PIP log on presuit request from medical provider
FLORIDA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS KANG & ASSOCIATES, MD. PA, as assignee of Stephanie Carrico, Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 04-SC-4586. February 8, 2005. Jerry L. Brewer, Judge. Counsel: Richard Oliver Hale, IV, Orlando. Sean McDonough, Orlando.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER having come before this Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and this Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds the following:
UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. This is a claim for declaratory relief arising out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on or about 10/09/2003.
2. Stephanie Carrico executed an assignment of benefits in favor of Florida Emergency Physicians Kang & Associates, MD., P.A.
3. Florida Emergency Physicians Kang & Associates MD., P.A., submitted their billing for payment. The bill was not paid.
4. Thereafter, on April 13, 2004, the Plaintiff sent a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, as well as a request to the Defendant for a copy of the policy, declarations page, and PIP payout log pursuant to Florida Statutes 627.4137, 627.736(6)(d), and 627.7401
5. On April 21, 2004, the Defendant sent a response to the Plaintiff’s demand, indicating that payment would not be forthcoming as the bill had been applied to the patient’s deductible. The Defendant did not enclose a copy of the policy, declarations page or PIP log, as requested in the Plaintiff’s demand.
6. On April 27, 2004, the Plaintiff reiterated its request for a copy of the policy, declarations page and PIP log, in an effort to confirm the amount of the alleged deductible and its applicability to the patient.
7. The Defendant failed to respond to this additional request.
8. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint requesting declaratory relief.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is GRANTED on the merits. The Defendant’s argument that none of the statutes cited by Plaintiff obligate the Defendant to provide a policy, declarations page and PIP log is rejected. The Court finds that a Defendant, upon proper request, is required to furnish, pre-suit, a copy of the patient’s declarations page, policy, and/or PIP log in accordance with Florida Statutes 627.4137, 677.736(6)(d) and 627.7401. The court specifically finds that Florida Statute § 627.4137, which references “liability carriers” refers to the nature of the claim being presented as opposed to the type of coverage sought, and obligates a PIP carrier to comply.
This Court finds as persuasive the long line of county court cases across the state beginning with INTEGRA DIAGNOSTICS (Shawn Umstead) v. RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 349c, 17th Judicial Circuit, Judge William Herring (2001), and followed by ROM DIAGNOSTICS v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Rafael Cruz), 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 323b, 9th Judicial Circuit, Judge Jeffery Arnold (2002); RURAL METRO AMBULANCE (Aletha Bryant) v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 583a, 9th Judicial Circuit, Judge Leon Cheek III (2004); RURAL METRO AMBULANCE (William Zaniboni) v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 755a, 19th Judicial Circuit, Judge Mark Herr (2004); TALLAHASSEE MRI, P.A. (Jacques Amilcar) v. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE CO., 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 69a, 17th Judicial Circuit, Judge Steven Deluca (2003); PALM BEACH REGIONAL MRI, INC. (Cynthia Jackman) v. SOUTHERN GROUP INDEMNITY INC., 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 742a, 15th Judicial Circuit, Judge Joseph Marx (2004). Each of these cases found the Plaintiff was entitled to the information being sought pre-suit and rejected the same arguments presented here by the Defendant.
This Court also finds as persuasive the Fourth District’s opinion in UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROUSSEAU, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2477a, (4th DCA, 1996). Rousseau involved an uninsured motorist claim. It is undisputed that an uninsured motorist claim, like a PIP claim, is a first party claim by nature, lending support to this court’s finding that the liability portion of Florida Statute 627.4137 goes to the nature of the carrier, and not the nature of the claim. The court reserves jurisdiction for the taxation of fees and costs as may be appropriate.
* * *
