13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 972a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory judgment — Jurisdiction — Even though count I of complaint was dismissed, amount in controversy remained the same, and county court retained jurisdiction to decide declaratory judgment action — Counsel — Appearance — Where complaint was signed in attorney’s name by attorney’s agent, attorney was of record in case — Insurer’s obligation to provide PIP log on presuit request from assignee/medical provider — Although PIP statute does not require disclosure of PIP log, provider is entitled to information essential to determining status as claimant — Trial court’s failure to consider insurer’s answer and affirmative defense was harmless error where defense relating to reasonableness of charges would have had no impact on issue of provider’s entitlement to documentation
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. PHYSICAL MEDICINE GROUP, a/a/o Audra Isaacson, Appellee. Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Seminole County. Case No. 05-13-AP. May 11, 2006. Appeal from the County Court for Seminole County, Honorable Mark E. Herr, County Court Judge. Counsel: William K. Pratt II, Kingsford & Rock, P.A., Maitland, for Appellant. Kevin B. Weiss, Weiss Legal Group, P.A., Maitland, for Appellee.
(NELSON, D., J.) Progressive Express Insurance Company (Progressive”) appeals an order entering summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on its claim for declaratory relief.
The standard of review for a final order granting a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P.,760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000).
First, Progressive contends that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the declaratory judgment action after Physical Medicine Group (“PMG”) voluntarily dismissed Count I of its Amended Complaint. County and circuit courts have jurisdiction over claims in equity. See Spradley v. Doe, 612 So.2d 722, 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (holding that “the clear intent of the legislature was to expand county court jurisdiction over certain specified equitable matters.”). In this case, even though Count I was dismissed, the amount in controversy remained at $1249.00. “In controversy” should be construed as what gave rise to the Complaint, and not limited to what relief is actually being sought. As such, county court jurisdiction in this matter was proper.
Next, Progressive alleges that the attorney who filed and argued the Motion for Summary Judgment was not an attorney of record as required by the Judicial Administrative Rules. The original Complaint was signed by Attorney Juan Lopez Palmer for Rutledge M. Bradford, Esq., apparently due to Ms. Bradford’s unavailability at the time of filing.
A pleading signed in the name of the attorney by the attorney’s authorized agent is, in effect, a pleading signed by the attorney.” Hankin v. Blissett, 475 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (A notice of appeal on which an attorney’s secretary signed the attorney’s name met the requirements of Rule §2.060(d).)
Progressive also contends that section 627.736, Florida Statutes, does not require disclosure of the information sought by PMG. This argument is correct: “No provision of §627.736 dictates that an insurer must provide a PIP log to an insured, or his/her assignee.” New Hampshire Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Rural Metro Ambulance, a/a/o William Zaniboni, Appeal No. 04-72-AP (Cir. Ct. 18th Jud. Cir., Nov. 18, 2005) on rehearing. However, this Court held that although section 627.736 does not require disclosure, that does not mean that the medical care provider is not entitled to the information it requested.
Nevertheless, this finding does not mean that [RMA] is not entitled to the information that would otherwise be compiled in a PIP log. This Court agrees with [RMA] that it has a right to determine, pre-suit, what claims have been made and when; if any claims have been paid or denied; whether the deductible has been met; and, if not, how much remains; and whether benefits have truly been exhausted. Whether such information is compiled in a PIP log or some other data compilation format is immaterial. For these same reasons, RMA has a right to a copy of the insurance policy and the declarations page. 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.
New Hampshire Indemnity Insurance, supra at 4.
This argument applies to both sections 627.4137 and 627.736. Progressive must be required to provide this information to PMG.
Finally, Progressive argues that they were denied due process by the Court due to Appellant’s Answer/Affirmative Defenses/Counterclaim not being considered. On November 16, 2004, Progressive filed a Motion for Leave to File Answer/Affirmative Defenses/Counterclaim (hereinafter “Answer”). Progressive claims that at the moment the lower court granted their Motion to Set Aside Default, the previously filed Answer should have been deemed filed.
This motion was filed prior to PMG voluntarily dismissing Count I of its Amended Complaint, and prior to the court granting PMG’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II. Progressive states that their Motion for Leave to File Answer has not been properly considered by the lower court.
PMG alleges that Progressive’s affirmative defenses were not related to the issues before the trial court at the summary judgment and before this Court on appeal. Therefore, this document would not have had any impact on the summary judgment ruling.
Progressive’s sole affirmative defense (R. 101, ¶ 29) states that “Some or all of the bills that are at issue in this suit were reimbursed at a reasonable charge rate pursuant to Florida Statute Section 627.736(5). The remainder of any charges is in excess of the reasonable charge and cannot be charged to either the insurer or the insured.”
Summary Judgment was awarded on Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint, seeking declaratory relief compelling production of the requested documentation. Progressive’s defense would have had no impact on this issue, and the Court’s failure to consider it was harmless error.
ACCORDINGLY the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment on Its Claim for Declaratory Relief is AFFIRMED.
* * *
