15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 163a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Admissions — Insurer’s motion for relief from technical admissions is denied where insurer cannot demonstrate justifiable reason for failure to timely respond to request for admissions despite being put on notice of noncompliance three times, and allowing insurer relief from technical admissions would prejudice medical provider by creating substantial delay in resolution of matter
MARTINEZ CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., (Manuel Alonso, Patient), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 06-001631 COCE (51). May 31, 2007. Martin R. Dishowitz, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein, Weinstein & Associates, P.A., Coral Springs, for Plaintiff. Russell Kolodziej, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM TECHNICAL ADMISSIONS
THIS CAUSE having come before the undersigned upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Have Defendant’s Admissions Admitted and Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Technical Admissions, and the Court having reviewed the matter and having been otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon:
Background:
1. The above styled cause of action arises out of a claim for unpaid personal injury protection benefits filed by the Plaintiff on November 15, 2005.
2. The Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 14, 2006.
3. On January 27, 2006 the Plaintiff served the Defendant with its Request for Admissions.
4. On November 27, 2006, more than 10 months later, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Have Admissions Admitted due to Defendant’s failure to comply with the Plaintiff’s discovery requests and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. The record further reflects that, the Defendant was aware of their failure to respond prior to the Plaintiff filing the aforementioned Motion, in that on March 7, 2006 when responding to Plaintiff’s interrogatory # 14, the Defendant’s response was as follows: “The response to interrogatory #14 a-b is not available at this time as Defendant states it has not responded to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions at this time.” Accordingly, the Defendant was well aware that as of March 7, 2006 they had not yet complied with Plaintiff’s discovery requests that were already overdue.
6. On March 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment on the basis of the admitted admissions, again placing Defendant on notice for the third time that it had not responded to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions.
Conclusions of Law:
7. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(a) states, “the matter is admitted unless the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter within 30 days after service of the request or such shorter or longer time as the court may allow.”
8. In addition to the operation of the Rule of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Motion to Have Admissions Deemed Admitted on November 27, 2006.
9. The Defendant cannot produce any record evidence which demonstrates a justifiable reason for their failure to timely respond to Request for Admissions. The Defendant is also not in a position to rely on inadvertence as a basis for their omissions, as the Plaintiff placed the Defendant on notice on three separate occasions that they failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions.
10. The instant case bears a similar factual relationship to both Asset Management v. City of Tamarac, 913 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) and Farish v. Lum’s, Inc., 267 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1972), in that the Defendant cannot demonstrate any factual basis that would justify their noncompliance. “The record before us is devoid of any facts that would require the trial court to excuse the defendant’s failure to comply with Rule 1.370. It cannot be held that, as a matter of law, inadvertence is sufficient to excuse noncompliance.” Id.
11. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(b), “any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” Id.
12. Defendant’s failure to provide timely responses to Requests for Admissions deems all aforementioned admissions admitted.
13. If the Court were to grant the relief requested by the Defendant, the Plaintiff would suffer considerable prejudice. The instant case was noticed for trial on November 30, 2006, and as of the date of this hearing is ready for trial or final disposition. Allowing the Defendant relief from technical admissions would only create a substantial delay in the resolution of this matter.
14. Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted is accordingly moot as the matters sought to be deemed admitted have been conclusively established by operation of law.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Technical Admissions is DENIED.
