15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 845b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory judgment — Assignee medical provider may maintain actions for declaratory relief and breach of contract to determine or enforce right to copy of PIP policy and declarations page under section 627.4137 — No merit to arguments that insurer satisfied obligation by furnishing information to insured, that statute applies only to third-party claims, that assignment of benefits does not specifically assign right to policy and declarations page, or that provider failed to comply with preconditions of section 627.736
FIDEL S. GOLDSON, D.C., P.A., a Florida Corporation (assignee of Campbell, Kemal), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 07-16359 COCE 54. June 11, 2008. Lisa Trachman, Judge. Counsel: Russel M. Lazega, Law Office of Russel Lazega, P.A., North Miami, for Plaintiff. John Murphy, Green, Murphy, & Murphy, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (BREACHOF CONTRACT & DECLARATORY RELIEF RE:RIGHT TO A COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICYAND POLICY DECLARATIONS INFORMATION)
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Count I & II — Breach of Contract & Declaratory Relief regarding right to a copy of the insurance policy and policy declarations information), and the Court’s having reviewed the Motion and entire Court file; reviewed the relevant legal authorities; heard argument, and been sufficiently advised in the premises the Court finds as follows:
Background:This is a P.I.P. case. At issue is Count I & II of Plaintiff’s Complaint which seeks breach of contract & declaratory relief regarding Plaintiff’s right to a copy of the insurance policy and declarations page pursuant to F.S. s. 627.4137. Plaintiff (through counsel) submitted a pre-suit request for a copy of the insurance policy and declarations information. It is not disputed by record evidence that the Defendant did not furnish this information to Plaintiff prior to suit.
Conclusions of Law:This court agrees with the reasoning of the overwhelming majority of county and circuit courts that have considered the issue and finds that an assignee medical provider may maintain an action to determine or enforce its right to a copy of the insurance policy and policy declarations page under F.S. s. 627.4137. See, e.g., Integra Diagnostics v. Reliance Nat’l Ind., 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 394c (County Court, Broward 2001); Florida Orthopedic Center, P.A. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1234 (County Court, Broward 2006); Scott M. Jablon, D.C. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 643c (County Court, Broward 2006); American Vehicle Ins. Co. v. Florida Emergency Physicians Kang & Assoc., P.A., 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 973 (18th Circuit Appellate 2006); Rural Metro Ambulance v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 583a (County Court, Broward 2003).
The court is not persuaded by the argument that: the insurer somehow satisfied its obligation to provide the Plaintiff with a copy of the insurance policy and declarations page by furnishing the information to the insured (either at the time insured took out the policy or at each renewal); that Florida Statute s. 627.4137 applies only to third party claims; that the Assignment of Benefits does not specifically assign the right to the policy and declarations page; or the lack of Plaintiff not complying with the pre-conditions of Florida Statute s. 627.736.
Florida Statute s. 627.4137 expressly requires the insurer to furnish this information to the “claimant” upon request. American Heritage Dictionary defines a “claimant” as “a party who makes a claim.” As such, the Plaintiff medical provider, who has accepted assignment of benefits for this claim, is a “claimant” entitled to the policy and declarations information.
The court similarly, finds that Florida Statute s. 627.4137 is not limited only to third party or liability claimants. The above cases clearly involved first party P.I.P. claimants and the court finds no logical or statutory distinction. See, e.g., United Auto Insurance Co. v. Rousseau, 682 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Put simply, an insurer cannot demand strict compliance with policy conditions on one hand, and then refuse to honor requests for copies of the policy on the other. Finally, Plaintiff is not demanded copies of the policy and declarations page under Florida Statute s. 627.736 for its pre-conditions to be applicable.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Summary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff as to Count I & II of the complaint. Plaintiff is the prevailing party as to Count I & II and pursuant to Florida Statute 627.428, Plaintiff has obtained a “judgment or decree” entitling Plaintiff to recover from Defendant attorney’s fees and costs as to Count I & II in an amount to be determined at a later hearing. The court reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees and costs.
