13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 643b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Default — Where insurer failed to file responsive pleading by deadline set by court and continued to fail to comply with order to file pleading despite clear notice of medical provider’s intention to seek default, provider is entitled to default
ISO DIAGNOSTICS, INC., f/k/a Baseline Diagnostics, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 06-340 COCE 55. March 21, 2006. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Nicole Panitz, Boca Raton, for Plaintiff. Nathan Avrunin, Coral Gables, for Defendant.ORDER OF DEFAULT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default, and the Court’s having reviewed the Motion and entire Court file; reviewed the relevant legal authorities; and been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Background: This action was filed on January 4, 2006. On February 8, 2006, the Honorable Kathleen Ireland entered an Order which directed that the “Defendant shall have 20 days from the date of this order to file a responsive pleading or shall suffer default.” The Defendant failed to do so. On March 13, 2006, the Plaintiff served its Motion for Default due to failure of the Defendant to file a responsive pleading as required by the Court’s Order. The Plaintiff also provided notice to the Defendant of its application for default. The Motion for Default was filed of record of March 15, 2006. Notwithstanding the additional time provided de facto to the Defendant as the result of the Plaintiff’s filing its Motion, the Defendant has continued to fail to file a responsive pleading.
It is undisputed that the Defendant’s counsel received copies of the Court’s Order of February 8, 2006 because counsel for both parties signed a copy of the Order.
Conclusions of Law: When a defendant fails to file a response by the deadline set by a court, a default is appropriate. See The Florida Bar v. Kaufman, 684 So.2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1996). The Defendant in this case has failed to comply with this Court’s Order, and the Plaintiff has put the Defendant on clear notice of its intention to seek a default. Nevertheless, the Defendant has continued to fail to file the required pleading. See Mondeja v. Cuevas, 583 So.2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Smith v. Gunsaullus, 511 So.2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to a default. See also Picchi v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, 521 So.2d 1090, 1090-91 (Fla. 1988) (hearing not required under these circumstances). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default is hereby GRANTED, and a Default is hereby entered against the Defendant.
