13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 157c
Insurance — Workers’ compensation — Filed rate doctrine — Action by insured against workers’ compensation carrier for demanding additional premiums dismissed — Insured must seek to exhaust administrative remedies under statute governing workers’ compensation insurance rates before seeking redress in courts
PIERCE CUSTOM PAINTING a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, vs. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit for Pasco County. Case No. 51-2005-CC-2030-WS, Division O. November 9, 2005. William Sestak, Judge. Counsel: James Dowling, Law Offices of Berger & Dowling, for Plaintiff. George Hunter, Kingsford & Rock, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE coming before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint; and, the Court having heard argument of Counsel; and the Court having considered the Defendant’s written Motion and case law cited; the Court finds that:
1. The Complaint alleges, in Count I, a breach of contract based on the Defendant improperly demanding additional premiums. Defendant is a worker’s compensation insurance carrier providing coverage to Plaintiff’s employees. Defendant’s argument that the FILED RATE DOCTRINE is applicable is well taken. Plaintiff must seek to exhaust its administrative remedies under Chapter 627.291, Florida Statutes, before seeking redress in the Courts.
2. Further, while not contained within the four-corners of the Complaint, Counsel argues that documentation is available which provides that his (Plaintiff) client is EXEMPT from any premiums. While that may ultimately be true, it was not pled in this case. Further, even if it had been pled, it would seem that the Plaintiff would first be required to exhaust their administrative remedies regarding this claim before bringing same before the Court.
3. Finally, as to Count I, the Complaint fails to allege any SPECIAL damages as required by the applicable case law cited by Defendant.
4. As to Count II, this Court agrees with Defendant’s argument that the Courts should not be setting worker’s compensation insurance rates because of the application of the FILED RATE DOCTRINE. Again, it would appear to this Court that the Plaintiff must exhaust its administrative remedies available pursuant to statute before seeking redress in the Courts.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.
