15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 932b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Consolidation of cases — Motion to consolidate two PIP cases involving same medical provider, same insurer, and insureds who were injured in same accident is denied where cases involve separate policies, separate injuries and separate potential affirmative defenses
GULF COAST INJURY CENTER, LLC., (As Assignee of Ruben Otalvaro), Plaintiff, vs. COOPERATIVA DE SEGUROS MULTIPLES DE PUERTO RICO, INC., Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 08-CC-00360. July 11, 2008. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge. Counsel: David W. Lipscomb, Nicholas & Patrick, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. Kathryn H. Christian, Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
THIS MATTER came before the court on March 20, 2008, on Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate and Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Demand for Escrow. Present before the Court were Plaintiff’s counsel, David W. Lipscomb, Esq., and Defendant’s counsel, Kathryn H. Christian, Esq. The Court after hearing argument of counsel and after review of the file makes the following findings:
1. The Defendant seeks to consolidate the instant case with Hillsborough County Case No.: 2008-CC-000376, Gulf Coast Injury Center, LLC. (a/a/o Carlos Otalvaro) v. Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples de Puerto Rico, Inc.
2. The Court acknowledges the Defendant’s argument that the two assignors were involved in the same motor vehicle accident and the treatment at issue occurred at the same medical facility. Additionally, the Court finds that the two assignors had two (2) separate and distinct insurance policies, were diagnosed with separate and distinct injuries and that the Defendant has reserved its right to assert additional affirmative defenses.
3. The additional affirmative defenses that Defendant has reserved its right to assert will likely be based on the issues of reasonableness, relatedness and necessity of the treatment involved.
4. As the two cases involve separate policies, separate injuries and separate potential affirmative defenses, the operative fact testimony for each matter would be different.
5. The Plaintiff has withdrawn its Demand for Escrow of Insurance Benefits.
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. The Plaintiff’s Demand for Escrow of Insurance Benefits filed with the original Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Complaint is hereby acknowledged as WITHDRAWN.
2. The Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED for the reasons cited in the findings of fact in this Order.
3. The Court hereby enters its standard PIP Pre-Trial Order in this matter. The parties are directed to comply with the Order, specifically in regards to scheduling this matter for mediation and non-binding arbitration.
4. The Court reserves the right to revisit the issue of consolidation should future circumstances demonstrate that the matters are appropriate for consolidation.
