14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1059b
NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 805a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Exhaustion of policy limits — Where insurer exhausted benefits after suit was filed, and there is no evidence that exhaustion of benefits was undertaken in bad faith, summary judgment is awarded for insurer
IKEIA EAST, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 05-SC-11103. November 20, 2006. Carolyn B. Freeman, Judge. Counsel: Brian Coury, The Coury Law Firm, P.A., Lake Mary, for Plaintiff. Eric Biernacki, Adams, Blackwell & Diaco, P.A., Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING, VACATING ORDER OF MAY 24, 2006AND SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
This cause came for hearing on July 28, 2006, on the Defendant’s Motion For Rehearing regarding the denial of Defendant’s Motion For Summary Final Judgment. After hearing the arguments of counsel, reviewing the relevant statutes, case law and the pleadings in the file, the Court agrees with the Defendant’s position and grants the Defendant’s Motion For Rehearing and vacates and sets aside its previous Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Summary Final Judgment entered May 24, 2006, and substitutes this order awarding Defendant a Summary Final Judgment, and further finds, as follows:
A. This is a claim for PIP benefits arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about July 26, 2005.
B. The Plaintiff in this matter is IKEIA EAST, the insured under a PIP policy of insurance issued by Defendant, PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE COMPANY.
C. This policy was in full force and effect on the date of the alleged accident and it had a $10,000.00 limit.
D. As a result of the July 26, 2005, accident, Plaintiff sought treatment with different medical providers.
E. Defendant has made loss wage payments to Plaintiff, as well as reasonable payments to several medical providers pursuant to the various assignments.
F. This lawsuit was filed on November 16, 2005.
G. Thereafter, on December 21, 2005, the Defendant exhausted the policy limit of benefits.
H. That Plaintiff contracted for certain benefits under her policy and those benefits have been exhausted.
I. There is no evidence that Defendant’s exhaustion of benefits was undertaken in bad faith.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, as follows:
1. The Court hereby awards a Summary Final Judgment for Defendant.
2. Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action and Defendant shall go hence without day.
