12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 564b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Sufficiency — Demand letter which contained itemized patient account ledger for all medical treatment rendered to insured did not state with specificity each amount, date of treatment, service or accommodation and type of benefits claimed to be due and, therefore, failed to comply with statute and satisfy condition precedent to suit — Summary judgment granted in favor of insurer
MANDARIN CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, P.A. (as assignee for Gloria Conrad), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2004-CC-011741, Division B. March 14, 2005. Roberto A. Arias, Judge. Counsel: Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Marks & Fleischer, Ft. Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Patrick J. Snyder, James C. Rinaman, III & Associates, P.A., Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE, came to be heard on February 24, 2005, on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent pursuant to Florida Statute §627.736(11). Present before the Court appeared counsel for Defendant, Patrick J. Snyder, Esquire, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff. The Court having reviewed the Motion, having heard the argument of counsel, having reviewed the relevant case law and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds:
A. This lawsuit concerns Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant failed to make full payment of Plaintiff’s bills for medical treatment rendered to Defendant’s insured, Gloria Conrad, by the Plaintiff, Mandarin Chiropractic Center, P.A.
B. Pursuant to Section 627.736(11), Florida Statutes, the Plaintiff submitted to Defendant’s designee, a “demand letter” which contained an itemized patient account ledger from the Plaintiff for all medical treatment rendered to the insured.
C. Plaintiff’s “demand letter” and itemized patient account ledger did not state with specificity each amount, the date of treatment, service, or accommodation, and the type of benefit claimed to be due and was therefore, not compliant with Florida Statute §627.736(11)(b)(3).
D. Based on the affidavit of Defendant’s employee, who had responsibility for responding to “demand letters”, and in light of this Court’s previous decision in Coates v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 645b (Fla. Duval Cty. Ct. May 12, 2004), Plaintiff’s “demand letter” did not give Defendant proper notification of what Plaintiff claimed to be due in accordance with Florida Statute 627.736(11).
For the above stated reasons, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent pursuant to Florida Statute 627.736(11) is hereby GRANTED.
* * *
