14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 493a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Presuit — Insurer was obligated to provide PIP file upon presuit request from insured — There is no requirement that requesting insured cite section 627.736(6)(d)
GINA LLEWELLYN, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Tanya Llewellyn, a minor, Plaintiff(s), vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant(s). County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Division RJ. Case No. 502056SC013281XXXXMB. February 9, 2007. Frank S. Castor, Judge. Counsel: Russo Law Firm, West Palm Beach, for Plaintiff.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on January 24, 2007. The Court, having been advised of the premises, and having heard argument of counsel, finds as follows:
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for common law breach of contract, and breach of statutory requirements under F.S. 627.736, based on requests made to Defendant regarding personal injury protection benefits.
Specifically, the undisputed facts show that counsel for the Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant on September 19, 2005 notifying Defendant of his firm’s representation of the Plaintiff and request for policy information. On September 28, 2005, counsel for the Plaintiff sent Defendant an application for No-Fault Benefits. In an October 31, 2005 certified letter, counsel for the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant provide “this office, within thirty (30) days, the entire PIP file maintained by you or anyone on your behalf with regard to our client, Tanya Llewellyn.”
The undisputed facts also show that Defendant failed to respond to the October 31, 2005 request from Plaintiff’s counsel. The Defendant sent a payment log directly to the insured on November 20, 2005. The Plaintiff filed suit on December 8, 2005, claiming it had not received the requested documentation in the October 31, 2005 letter. The deposition testimony of Defendant’s claims representative, Joffer Faria, confirms that there was no response to Plaintiff’s October 31 letter. In the deposition, Mr. Faria responded to the following questions:
“Q: And was there a response to that letter provided by State Farm?”
“A: I don’t believe so, sir. I don’t believe I see a letter in here.”
“Q: Do you see any notes, phone logs in response to that letter?”
“A: No, sir, not a response to the letter.”
(Deposition of Faria, June 20, 2006, p. 16, lines 3-9).
The Court finds that the Defendant had a “duty to act in good faith,” and breached that duty by not ever responding to Plaintiff’s October 31, 2005 request. O’Shields v. United Automobile Insurance Company, 790 So.2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
The Court also finds that F.S. 627.736(6)(d) does entitle the insured to a copy of all information obtained by the insurer pertaining to the PIP claim. The Defendant argued that this statute can only be utilized after a lawsuit has been filed, and after the insurer has requested discovery. However, the Court finds that nothing in this statute requires a lawsuit to be filed prior to a request for information. The statute is broadly worded, and by utilizing it pre-suit, it serves to avoid frivolous litigation and simplify the PIP process. Further, there is no requirement that the Plaintiff specifically cite the statute when making its request for information. The insurer should have knowledge of the statutory scheme under which it is acting. The Defendant in this case disregarded its obligation to provide the requested information, under F.S. 627.736(6)(d).
Wherefore, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted.
