14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 582a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory judgments — Insurer’s obligation to furnish PIP log to medical provider/assignee — Mootness — Where provider failed to have motion to amend complaint to add count for declaratory relief based on insurer’s failure to provide PIP log heard prior to court hearing and granting insurer’s motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion of policy limits, provider’s motion to amend and motion for summary judgment are rendered moot
SPINE &REHAB MEDICINE, P.A., (As Assignee of Louise Baker), Plaintiff, v. PEACHTREE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 5th Judicial Circuit in and for Hernando County. Case No. H-27-SP-2006-686. March 21, 2007. Kurt E. Hitzemann, Judge. Counsel: David W. Lipscomb, Lipscomb, Nicholas, & Patrick, P.A., Tampa. Maytel S. Bonham, Law Offices of Matthew S. Brown, P.A., Jacksonville.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court having reviewed the file, the pleadings, heard the arguments of counsel and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. June 5, 2006, Plaintiff filed this PIP action and effected service on July 5, 2006.
2. August 24, 2006, Defendant filed its answer.
3. On October 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend their Complaint seeking to add a count for declaratory relief related to the Defendant’s alleged failure to provide a PIP payout log.
4. On November 7, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Hearing on the Motion to Amend setting the matter for hearing on January 18, 2007.
5. On November 20, 2006, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.
6. On December 11, 2006, Defendant filed its Notice of Hearing setting a hearing date of March 14, 2007 for its Motion for Summary Judgment.
7. On January 4, 2007, the Court rescheduled the Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend from January 18, 2007 to March 16, 2007.
8. On January 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.
9. On February 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Hearing setting its Motion for Summary Judgment for hearing on April 5, 2007.
10. On March 14, 2007, the Court heard Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion was based upon the fact that PIP benefits had exhausted.
11. The court finds that the Defendant is entitled to Summary Judgment because PIP benefits are exhausted. Burress v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 903B.
12. In addition, the Court finds that both the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment have been rendered moot due to the fact that Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant is granted herein.
13. The Court is aware that the result may have been different had the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend been heard before the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. However, it was not and the Plaintiff did nothing to attempt to have the motions heard in a different order and certainly did not object to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment being heard when it was.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
