12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 921a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Directed verdict — Motion for directed verdict entered and granted prior to start of trial is procedurally incorrect, but will be treated as motion for summary judgment for purposes of appellate review — Admissions — Technical — Where medical provider failed to timely answer insurer’s requests for admissions, such that requests were admitted on technicality, provider attempted to move for relief from effect of admissions, pleadings made clear provider’s position that it should be paid for services rendered and the existence of disputed issues of material fact, and evidence in record contradicted technical admissions, trial court erred in granting directed verdict/summary judgment in favor of insurer
QUIROPRACTIC & THERAPY CENTER, a/a/o MICHAEL M. ALANIA, Appellant, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 04-0348 AP. L.T. Case No. 02-4103 SP 05. July 5, 2005. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County. Counsel: Stuart B. Yanofsky, Stuart B. Yanofsky, P.A., and Neil M. Gonzalez, Pastor, Andreu & Montes, P.A., for Appellant. Mark A. Gatica, Office of the General Counsel, United Automobile Insurance Company, for Appellee.
(Before JON I. GORDON, AMY STEELE DONNOR and EUGENE J. FIERRO, JJ.)
(FIERRO, J.) Michael M. Alania was injured in an automobile accident. Mr. Alania had PIP insurance with United Automobile Insurance Co. He sought treatment with and assigned his PIP benefits to the Appellant, Quiropractic & Therapy Center. Quiropractic submitted its claims to United for services rendered to Mr. Alania. United refused to pay the claims. Quiropractic sued United for payment of the claims.
On May 28, 2002, United sent a request for admissions to Quiropractic. Quiropractic filed an untimely response and a motion for relief from the technical admissions. The hearing on the motion was scheduled for February 10, 2003, however, it was cancelled by counsel for United. On June 24, 2004, prior to the start of the trial, the presiding judge heard arguments from both parties. Quiropractic argued for relief from the technical admissions. United made a motion for directed verdict. The judge entered a directed verdict in favor of United. Quiropractic appealed.
The motion for a directed verdict was made in error. A party may not obtain a directed verdict prior to the time that the party moved against has completed his case-in-chief, since to do so would constitute a denial of due process of law. Searock, Inc. v. Babcock, 667 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In this case, the trial judge granted the directed verdict prior to the start of the case. Although procedurally incorrect, the motion for directed verdict will be treated as if it were a motion for summary judgment.
Motion for directed verdict and motion for summary judgment, compared: Both motions give rise to questions of law. Whether the motion be for a directed verdict or for a summary judgment the movant not only admits the basic facts established which are favorable to the adverse party, but also every conclusion or inference favorable to the adversary that might be reasonably inferred from the evidence.
Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 105 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
The standard of review for summary judgment is de novo. Sierra v. Shevin, 767 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.510(c) permits summary judgment to be entered whenever the record reveals that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Johnson v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 429 So. 2d 744, 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
In Ruiz v. Varona, 785 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the trial judge ruled in favor of the appellee on a summary judgment motion. The trial judge specifically noted the appellant untimely filed his response to the appellee’s request for admissions and the appellant had never moved for relief from the effect of the admission and for acceptance of a belated response. Id. The Third District Court of Appeal determined that the trial courts “are required to look beyond the pleading to determine the propriety of entering summary judgment.” Id. at 509. (quoting Sher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 638, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)). The dismissal based solely on the failure to timely answer a request for admissions would be inappropriate when the pleadings make clear the opposing party’s position and the existence of disputed facts. Id. The court found that the record was “replete with evidence contradicting the admissions created by [defendant’s] failure to file a timely response.” Id. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Id. The court also certified conflict with other district courts. Id.
In this case, United propounded requests for admissions. Quiropractic failed to timely answer the requests. Thus, the requests were admitted on a technicality. Quiropractic attempted to move for relief from the effect of the admissions. The pleadings make clear Quiropractic’s position that it should be paid for services rendered. It is clear from the record that there is a dispute of facts with the plaintiff’s complaint and technical admissions. It is also clear that the evidence in the record contradicts that of the technical admissions. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict because there is an issue of material fact regarding this matter.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. (DONNOR and GORDON, JJ., concur.)
* * *
