14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 98a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Arbitration — Trial de novo — Timeliness of request — Even if arbitrator announced what decision would be at arbitration proceeding, time period to seek trial de novo did not begin until service of written decision — Where insurer served motion for trial de novo before service of written decision, parties failed to timely make request for trial de novo, and court is required to enter judgment in accordance with decision
GARRETT R. WEINSTEIN, D.C., P.A., (a/a/o Jorge Santos), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 06-4103 COCE (53). November 14, 2006. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Steven Lander, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. William C. Stafford, Coral Gables, for Defendant.
FINAL JUDGMENT ON ARBITRATOR’S DECISION IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration of the notice of filing Arbitration Award filed by the Arbitrator Michael G. Ahearn, and the Court’s having reviewed the docket, the entire Court file, and the relevant legal authorities; and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
This case was submitted to mandatory arbitration. The arbitrator served his decision on October 10, 2006. Under Rule 1.820(h), Fla. R. Crim. P., a motion for trial de novo must be “made” within 20 days of the “service” of the arbitrator’s decision. Under Florida law, “a party has the right to move for a trial within twenty days after service of the arbitrator’s decision. If no motion for trial is timely served, then the trial court must enforce the decision of the arbitrator and has no discretion to do otherwise” (emphasis added). Bacon Family Partners, L.P. v. Apollo Condominium Ass’n, 852 So.2d 882, 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). See also Johnson v. Levine, 736 So.2d 1235, 1238 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc., 600 So.2d 511, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
In the instant case, the Defendant served a Motion for Trial de Novo on October 2, 2006, more than a week before the arbitrator had served his decision. The Defendant argues in its Response filed on November 9, 2006, that the arbitrator orally announced his decision at the arbitration proceeding, and “[n]owhere in the rule does it state that a party is precluded from filing a Motion for Trial de Novo prior to the arbitrator’s service of the written decision.” The Court disagrees. For instance, in a recent appellate case on this rule, the Fourth District Court of Appeal referred specifically to a “written decision.” Furia v. Ziccarelli, 935 So.2d 103, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, “service” of a paper always requires a writing. Rule 1.080(b). In other words, there can be no “service” of a decision until it is first memorialized in writing. See Stowe v. Universal Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 937 So.2d 156, 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (a motion for trial de novo cannot be made before a decision is “served”). Therefore, even if the arbitrator had announced what his decision would be, the time frame to seek a trial de novo does not begin until he or she has served a written decision.
The Court therefore finds that the parties failed to timely make a request for a trial de novo. As a result, the Court is required to enter judgment in accordance with the Arbitrator’s decision. See Gossett & Gossett, P.A. v. Fleming, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 839 (Broward Cty. Ct. 2003). Accordingly, the Court has this day unsealed the Arbitrator’s decision, and it is hereby
ADJUDGED THAT:
The Plaintiff shall recover from the Defendant, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, the sum of $4,444.00, which such sum shall hereafter bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum, for which sums let execution issue. The Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs, and the Court reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees and costs.
