Case Search

Please select a category.

PHYSICAL THERAPY WALK-IN CLINIC, P.A., (as assignee of Maria Altaf), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 400a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Justiciable issues — Motion for rehearing — Order awarding attorney’s fees to insurer pursuant to section 57.105 is vacated 

PHYSICAL THERAPY WALK-IN CLINIC, P.A., (as assignee of Maria Altaf), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 02-19401-SC, Division H. December 20, 2005. Daniel E. Gallagher, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., Tampa. Gale L. Young.

REVERSED at 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 23a

ORDER VACATING THE NOVEMBER 3,2004 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DETERMINE ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO§ 57.105 FLORIDA STATUTES

[Original Opinion at 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 158a; Order on Rehearing at 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 175b]

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the Court on December 1, 2005, upon Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration/Rehearing And/Or Motion For Clarification Of The Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion For Rehearing dated November 19, 2005, the Court having heard argument of counsel, and the Court having granted Plaintiffs Motion For Rehearing, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court hereby vacates its November 3, 2004 Order Granting Defendant’s Entitlement To Attorney’s Fees And Costs Pursuant To Florida Statutes Section 57.105. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs argument concerning the ruling in the companion case styled Physical Therapy Walk-In Clinic (As Assignee of Arselic Burgos) v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., wherein the Court expressly denied an insurer’s motion for sanction, pursuant to Florida Statute, section 57.105, where the insurer had prevailed at summary judgment due solely to the fact that the insured’s PIP benefits were exhausted, is persuasive in this cause. The Burgos precedent is to be followed in this case for uniformity purposes among other reasons. See Florida Statute 57.105(2).

* * *

Skip to content