15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 742a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Insurer’s objections to interrogatories asking whether insurer contends that insured submitted medical bills that are unreasonable or unnecessary, for descriptions of documentary evidence supporting any such contentions, for names and addresses of medical practitioners that reviewed bills and persons with knowledge of issues raised in pleadings, for statement of method used to calculate partial payments, and for facts supporting answers of “denied” and “insufficient knowledge” in response to request for admissions on ground that interrogatories are overbroad, harassing and irrelevant are denied — Motion to compel better responses granted and sanctions imposed
SHERLAND KERSAINT, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. CONO 07-002723 (71). May 15, 2008. Louis H. Schiff, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein, Weinstein & Associates, P.A., Coral Springs, for Plaintiff. Anthony Perez, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER INTERROGATORY RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on April 28, 2008 for hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better Interrogatory Responses and for Sanctions. The Court, having reviewed the Motions and the entire Court file, heard argument, reviewed relevant legal authorities, and been sufficiently advised on the premises, makes the following findings:
1. On November 9, 2007, Plaintiff propounded discovery, including interrogatories, upon the Defendant, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter “UNITED”).
2. On December 10, 2007, UNITED responded by providing unverified answers to interrogatories, purportedly answered by Ashanti Garland, Litigation Adjuster for UNITED.
3. On February 7, 2008, UNITED responded with verified answers to Interrogatories, this time answered by Monica Johnson, Litigation Adjuster for UNITED.
4. Plaintiff sought to compel better answers to Interrogatories #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14, each of which was objected to by UNITED on the basis of being overly broad, harassing and irrelevant.
A. Interrogatory #5 asks if UNITED is contending the Plaintiff submitted medical bills which were unreasonable in amount. UNITED objected to this interrogatory using the above-stated language, and answered “Yes.”
B. Interrogatory #6 asks UNITED, if it is contending the Plaintiff submitted medical bills which were unreasonable in amount, to describe with specificity all documentary evidence to support the contention. UNITED objected to this interrogatory using the above-stated language.
C. Interrogatory #7 asks UNITED to state the names and addresses of any and all medical practitioners that reviewed the Plaintiff’s medical bills. UNITED objected to this interrogatory using the above-stated language, and contradicted its response to Interrogatory #5 by stating “none.”
D. Interrogatory #8 asks UNITED if it is contending the Plaintiff submitted bills for services which were not medically necessary. UNITED objected to this interrogatory using the above-stated language, and refers the Plaintiff to a Peer Review conducted by Dr. Marfisi in an attempt to incorporate its contents into the response to the interrogatory.
E. Interrogatory #9 asks UNITED, if it is contending the Plaintiff submitted bills for services which were not medically necessary, to describe with specificity any documentary evidence it has to support the contention. UNITED objected to this interrogatory using the above-stated language, in contradiction to its response to Interrogatory # 8.
F. Interrogatory #11 asks UNITED to list the names and addresses of all persons believed or known by it to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues raised in the pleadings. UNITED objected to this interrogatory using the above-stated language.
G. Interrogatory #13 asks that UNITED state its methods for calculating the amounts of any partial payments it might have made toward the bills submitted by the Plaintiff. UNITED objected to this interrogatory using the above-stated language.
H. Interrogatory #14 asks that UNITED provide facts supporting its contention for every Request for Admissions that it answered as either “denied” or “insufficient knowledge.” UNITED responded stating, “Admitted.”
5. An answer to an interrogatory must be complete in itself and should not refer to other pleadings or documents or affidavits and thereby attempt to make their contents a part of the answer. State Road Department v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, 212 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1968). See also Summit Chase Condominium Association v. Protean Investors, 421 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982).
6. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380 provides, an evasive or incomplete answer shall be treated as a failure to answer, and if the motion is granted, and unless good cause is shown, the court shall require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay the moving party the reasonable expense incurred in obtaining the order that may include attorney’s fees.
It is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better Interrogatory Responses is granted.
2. The Defendant’s objections on the basis of the above-cited interrogatories being overbroad, harassing and irrelevant, are overruled.
3. Defendant shall produce full and complete responses to interrogatories numbered 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 on or before May 19, 2008.
4. Defendant shall pay $700.00 in sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to Florida Rule of civil Procedure 1.380 on or before May 30, 2008.
