14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 673a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Sufficiency
LARRY DUNSFORD, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 2nd Judicial Circuit in and for Wakulla County. Case No. 06-64-CC. May 4, 2007. Jill C. Walker, Judge. Counsel: Sherry D. Walker, Sherry Walker, P.A., for Plaintiff. Glenn S. Banner, Rinaman & Associates, Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE, came before the Court on March 28, 2007, on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court having heard arguments of counsel, reviewed the pleadings, motions and evidence before the Court, and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court finds:
1. The Plaintiff filed suit for unpaid No-Fault/Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits alleging that Defendant has breached its contract of insurance by failing to pay medical bills.
2. Florida Statute § 627.736(11)(2006) states in pertinent part,
“(a) As a condition precedent to filing any action for benefits under this section, the insurer must be provided with written notice of an intent to initiate litigation. Such notice may not be sent until the claim is overdue, including any additional time the insurer has to pay the claim pursuant to paragraph (4)(b).
(b) The notice required shall state that it is a “demand letter under s. 627.736(11)” and shall state with specificity:
(1) The name of the insured upon which such benefits are being sought, including a copy of the assignment giving rights to the claimant if the claimant is not the insurer.
(2) The claim number or policy number upon which such claim was originally submitted to the insurer.
(3) To the extent applicable, the name of any medical provider who rendered to an insured the treatment, services, accommodations, or supplies that for the basis of such claim; and an itemized statement specifying each exact amount, the date of treatment, service, or accommodation, and the type of benefit claimed to be due.”
3. The Defendant filed the Affidavit of its Litigation Representative, evidencing that the Plaintiff failed to provide the Defendant a demand letter that meets the specific requirements of Florida Statute § 627.736(11).
4. The Plaintiff argued that it substantially complied with the requirements of Florida Statute § 627.736(11), by sending a letter dated March 8, 2006, to Defendant’s Adjuster.
5. After a review of case law, statutes, submitted letters and affidavits, the Court believes strict compliance with the Statute is mandated. Specifically, Plaintiff’s letter must:
(a) Include identification as a “demand letter under Florida Statute § 627.736(11)”.
(b) Set forth specifically the exact amount and the date of service claimed to be due as required by Florida Statute § 627.736(11)(b)(3).
(c) Be delivered by certified or registered mail as required by Florida Statute § 627.736(11)(c).
6. The letter dated March 8, 2006, as a matter of law fails to satisfy the statutory condition precedent of Florida Statute § 627.736(11).
THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and this suit shall be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff, Larry Dunsford, take nothing in this action, and the Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of hearing a motion filed by Defendant to tax attorney’s fees and costs.
