13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1090b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Claimant with own PIP coverage — Claimant’s own PIP insurer was obligated to pay for injuries sustained while claimant occupied vehicle owned by person insured by plaintiff insurer and is directed to reimburse plaintiff for PIP benefits paid on behalf of claimant — Lack of notice to claimant’s insurer is not defense to plaintiff’s claims, as plaintiff had no duty to notify claimant’s insurer of accident or bills
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 06-02191, Division M. August 18, 2006. Paul L. Huey, Judge. Counsel: David B. Kampf, Ramey & Kampf, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. Heather A. Harwell, Luks, Santaniello, Perez, Petrillo & Gold, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING STATE FARM’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on August 2, 2006 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, having reviewed the file and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall hereby be GRANTED. This Court finds that Leonel Padron had contracted with United Automobile Insurance Company for personal injury protection benefits and that United Automobile was obligated to pay said benefits for injuries sustained while Mr. Padron occupied a vehicle owned by the State Farm insured, Brenda Cardenas. Further, the lack of notice to United Automobile Insurance Company is not a defense against State Farm’s claims as State Farm did not maintain a duty to notify United Automobile of the accident and billing submitted to State Farm.
2. Therefore, State Farm is entitled to reimbursement from United Automobile Insurance Company of all no-fault benefits paid by State Farm on behalf of Leonel Padron.
3. Benefits paid by State Farm total $4,287.62.
4. Based on the above, this Court finds that State Farm is entitled to a damage award of $4,287.62, as well as prejudgment interest at 7% per annum and that began to accrue on June 1, 2004, for total pre-suit interest in the amount of $650.00.
5. Based on the above, State Farm is entitled to recover from the Defendant the sum of $4,937.62, and post judgment interest at a rate of 9% per annum, for which sum let execution issue.
6. This Court hereby reserves jurisdiction to hear argument and to determine State Farm’s entitlement and reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs.
