13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1214a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory judgment — Insurer’s obligation to provide policy, declarations page and/or PIP log on presuit request by medical provider/assignee — Insurer was obligated to provide PIP log requested in provider’s demand letter
BAYVIEW MEDICAL & REHAB CENTER, INC., (As assignee of Jesus Menendez), Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Respondent. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 05 03158, Division I. September 8, 2006. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Nicholas, Lipscomb & Patrick, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. William Capita, for Defendant.
[Editor’s note: See 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 108b.]
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE was to come before the Court on August 16, 2006 on Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel, Timothy A. Patrick, and Defendant’s counsel, William Capito, were present. The Court, after hearing argument and reviewing all applicable law, rules as follows:
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s failure to provide a PIP Log is hereby GRANTED. The Court relies on the rationale cited in the decisions of New Hampshire Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Rural Metro Ambulance, a/a/o William Zaniboni, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 573a (Seminole Cty. Ct. 2005) and Leesburg Chiropractic Center, Inc., a/a/o Monique Mzhickteno v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 841a (Seminole Cty. Ct. 2006).
2. The Court finds that even though the Defendant may not be statutorily required to provide a PIP Log to an insured, or his/her assignee, in this case, the Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter requested a copy of the updated PIP Log. The Defendant cites to the case of Suncoast Spinal Medical & Rehab Centers, Inc. (a/a/o Suzanne McKibben) v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1092b, 13th Judicial Circuit, Judge Charlotte Anderson (2005). However, the Suncoast decision, which this court decided, is distinguishable as it turns on the fact that a billing company was making the demand for the PIP Log, as opposed to the Plaintiff.
3. In New Hampshire Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Rural Metro Ambulance, a/a/o William Zaniboni, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 573a (Seminole Cty. Ct. 2005), which may or may not be binding on this court, the ,court stated: “The trial court erred on when it determined that RMA was entitled to a copy of the PIP log”. However, the Court goes on further to say “Although a requirement to provide such information may not be expressly stated in section 627.736, Florida Statutes, this Court finds that the provision of such information is essential to RMA’s ability to determine its status as a claimant and makes eminently good common sense. Furthermore, the Court finds that the provision of such information by an insurer to an insured, or its assignee, is consistent with the purpose of the no-fault statutory scheme, to wit: “to ‘provide swift and virtually automatic payment so that the injured insured may get on with his life without undue financial interruption.’ ” See Allstate v. Ivey Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679, 683-84 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 512 So.2d 269, 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)).”
4. This Court agrees with Zaniboni, and adopts the aforementioned language. There was no contention that the Defendant provided this information to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Plaintiff had no information as to other pending claims. The Defendant was required to provide a copy of the PIP log to the Plaintiff pre-suit.
* * *
