13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 349b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Letter sent to related entity mistakenly named as insurer — Where medical provider filed complaint against one of insurer’s entities; that entity was served by Secretary of State, answered complaint without denying it was proper party, admitted it was correct entity that provided coverage to insured, and two years later amended answer to deny admission; employees do not recognize difference between any of insurer’s entities; entities share the same employees, contact person, website, administrative address, home office, mailing address and records location; and proper entity has been substituted as party in case; insurer was put on notice of claim, and insurer’s entities are sufficiently related that no prejudice will occur from applying relation back doctrine to demand letter — Insurer’s motion for summary judgment denied
FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, As assignee of KARA MILLER, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2003-32270 COCI. November 8, 2005. Stasia Warren, Judge. Counsel: Mark A. Matovina, Bogin, Munns & Munns, South Daytona.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
This cause having come on to be heard upon the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, and the court, having reviewed the motion, the court file, heard argument of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. On or about May 21, 2003, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Progressive Express Insurance Company pursuant to Florida Statutes §627.730-7405 (2001).
2. On or about June 10, 2003, Defendant, Progressive Express Company, was served by the Secretary of State.
3. Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, answered the complaint and did not deny or make any motion that they were not the proper party.
4. Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company in their admissions admitted to the Plaintiff that they were the correct entity that provided coverage for Kara Miller.
5. Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, amended their answer two years later to deny the admission.
6. Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, provided discovery responses, that included but were not limited to a certified copy of the insurance policy for Kara Miller.
7. Depositions were taken of Defendant’s, Progressive Express Insurance Company’s employees.
8. The employees do not recognize a difference between any of the Progressive entities such as Progressive Express Insurance Company and Progressive American Insurance Company.
9. On or about August 1, 2005 the Court ordered that the defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, was dismissed from the action and that Progressive American Insurance Company could be substituted.
10. Progressive Express Insurance Company and Progressive American Insurance Company share the same employees.
11. Progressive Express Insurance Company and Progressive American Insurance Company use the same person as their PIP contact person.
12. Pursuant to the information provided to the Department of Financial Services by these entities, Progressive Express Insurance Company and Progressive American Insurance Company share the same website, administrative address, home office, mailing address, and same location of records.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff did not comply with a condition precedent, to wit: provide written notice of intent to initiate litigation and/or submit a demand letter. The Plaintiff argues that the suit was filed before Florida Statute §627.736(11), which required a 15 day pre-suit demand letter, was amended. Further Plaintiff argues that the relations back doctrine may be applied to new parties only if the new party is sufficiently related to the original party so that no prejudice to the new party will occur. Darden v. Beverly Health Rehabilitation, 763 So.2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain’s, 725 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
This court agrees with the Plaintiff and finds that Progressive American Insurance Company was put on notice of Plaintiff’s claims, and that both Progressive American and Progressive Express are sufficiently related and no prejudice will occur by changing the party name. Steven D. Gelbard, M.D., P.A. v. Progressive Consumers Insurance Company, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 262a.
It is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Attorneys fees is DENIED.
