12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 937b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Arbitration — Where trial court referred dispute between provider and insurer to statutory, nonbinding arbitration without specifying a desire to limit the arbitration to any particular matter in dispute, the entire controversy, including coverage issues, was to be resolved in the proceeding — Because insurer failed to request trial de novo within 20 days of arbitration decision, trial court was obliged to enter final judgment in accordance with arbitration decision in favor of provider, notwithstanding insurer’s subsequent request for trial on coverage defenses of material misrepresentation and failure to appear for examination under oath
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. TOTAL REHAB & MEDICAL CENTERS, a/a/o LINA MURILLO, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 04-10110 CACE (05). June 22, 2005. Counsel: Michael J. Neimand. Rina F. Kaplan.OPINION
(RICHARD D. EADE, J.)THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Appellant’s, United Automobile Insurance Company, Appeal of the trial court’s Order granting Final Summary Disposition in favor of Appellee, Total Rehab & Medical Centers, Inc., a/a/o Linda Murillo. Having considered the appellate record, reviewed the relevant statutes and case law, and being otherwise advised in the premises, this Court dispenses with oral argument, and finds and decides as follows:
The instant case arises from a Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) claim in which Appellant was the insurer. Appellee, a medical provider, filed suit on or about January 9, 2003, seeking PIP benefits for treatment rendered. The trial court referred this case to nonbinding arbitration on October 31, 2003. On April 14, 2004, the arbitrator ruled in favor of Appellee, awarding it damages in the amount of $5,860.00, plus interest. On May 18, 2004, Appellee filed a motion to ratify the arbitration decision, noting the absence of either party’s request for a trial de novo within 20 days of the decision, pursuant to Section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes. At a June 10, 2004 hearing, Appellant’s request for a trial on the coverage defenses of material misrepresentation and examination under oath no show was denied by the trial court. A final judgment ratifying the arbitrator’s decision was then entered in Appellee’s favor.
Appellant now contends the trial court erred in denying a trial on the coverage defenses, since coverage defenses are not within the scope of arbitration. Johnson v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 828 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2002); Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1974). Given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court cannot find in favor of Appellant.
First, the cases cited by Appellant concern binding arbitration required as a result of an appraisal or arbitration clause within an insurance policy. Such arbitration directs parties to a contract to utilize arbitration or an appraisal to determine the cash value and amount of loss in insurance liabilities. Within this context, matters unrelated to damages, such as coverage issues, are outside the scope of arbitration, and must be resolved by a court of law. Preferred Ins. Co. v. Richard Parks Trucking Co., 158 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
To the contrary, the instant case involves a statutory, nonbinding arbitration proceeding which resulted from a referral from the trial court, pursuant to Section 44.103(2). Section 44.103(2) states “[a] court, pursuant to rules adopted by the Supreme Court, may refer any contested civil action filed in a circuit or county court to nonbinding arbitration.” The judge may refer all or any part of the dispute to arbitration. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.700(a). Generally, however, “arbitration. . .encompasses the disposition of the entire controversy between the parties upon which award of judgment may be entered.” Preferred Ins. Co. v. Parks, 158 So.2d at 820. Here, the trial court did not specify a desire to limit the arbitration to any particular matter in the dispute, thus indicating the entire controversy, including coverage issues, was to be resolved in the proceeding.
Second, Appellant failed to request a trial de novo within 20 days of the arbitration decision. A party to court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration has the right to request a trial de novo within 20 days of service on the parties of the arbitration decision if it finds any part of the decision is inadequate. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820(h). A party may request a trial de novo to resolve the entire dispute, or it may request a trial de novo that is limited to challenging specific parts of the arbitrator’s award. Bacon Family Partners v. Apollo Condominium Ass’n. Inc., 852 So.2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Section 44.103(5) states in pertinent part:
An arbitration decision shall be final if a request for a trial de novo is not filed within the time provided by the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. . .If no request for trial de novo is made within the time provided, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge in the case who shall enter such orders and judgments as are required to carry out the terms of the decision, which orders shall be enforceable by the contempt powers of the court, and for which judgments execution shall issue on request of a party.
Here, Appellant had the right and opportunity to request a trial de novo if it was unsatisfied with any part of the arbitrator’s decision. It could have requested a trial de novo to resolve the entire dispute or the request could have been limited to the aforementioned coverage defenses. Since Appellant neglected to exercise either option, failing to take action within 20 days following the arbitrator’s decision, said decision was referred to the trial judge, who was then obliged to enter the final judgment in favor of Appellee. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s Order Granting Final Summary Disposition is AFFIRMED.
* * *
