15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1206a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Three demand letters for three periods of service comply with section 627.736(11), despite fact that ledger attached to each demand letter lists all dates of service, where each letter on its face specifies dates of service and charges claimed by that letter and amount claimed can be easily verified by reference to ledger
WEST DIXIE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, a Florida Corporation (assignee of Laguerre, Beatriz), Plaintiff, v. REDLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 07-37109 CC 23 (02). Claim No. 037-1546-SOE. October 14, 2008. Caryn Canner Schwartz, Judge. Counsel: Aura Brooks, Law Office of Russel Lazega, P.A., North Miami, for Plaintiff. Brian E. Pabian, Luks, Santaniello, Perez, PA, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DEMAND LETTER)
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that Plaintiff failed to provide a proper presuit demand letter in accordance with F.S. 627.736(11). The Court having heard argument, reviewed the Motions and Filings and being otherwise advised in the matter, finds as follows:
Factual Background: This is a P.I.P. case seeking payment for Plaintiff’s charges from dates of service 8/6/07 to 9/25/07. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to comply with the specificity requirements of F.S. s. 627.736(11). Specifically, Plaintiff submitted three` separate demand letters for payment as follows:
1st Demand in the amount of $4,110.00 for dates of service 8/6/07 to 8/17/07;
2nd Demand in the amount of $3,060.00 for dates of service 8/20/07 to 9/6/07 and
3rd Demand in the amount of $1,870.00 for dates of service 9/12/07 to 9/25/07.
Attached to each demand letter was the complete itemized ledger of charges for all dates of service (8/6/07 to 9/25/07) — which totaled $9,040.00. The ledgers did not remove charges that were beyond the dates of service claimed on the face of each of Plaintiff’s demand letters.
Legal Analysis: Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letters fail to comply with F.S. s. 627.736(11) because in the body of each demand letter Plaintiff demands payment for particular dates of service, yet the ledger attached to each demand letter lists all dates of service.
On consideration of the arguments, the court finds that the Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letters are legally sufficient, notwithstanding that they attach a ledger containing dates of service beyond those claimed in the demand. Specifically, each demand letter indicates in bold letters the specific dates of service demanded and the dollar amount. The itemization of charges and codes claimed can be easily discerned by looking to the attached ledger. For example, for the Plaintiff’s 1st demand letter, the charges on the itemized ledger for dates of service 8/6/07 to 8/17/07 total exactly the $4,110.00 claimed on the face of the ledger. Defendant is well-able to look to the dates of service identified on the letter and tabulate those services by looking to the attached ledger and adding up the charges for those specific dates of service. In fact, the defendant is effectively doing the same work since the Defendant would invariably confirm the calculation on the demand letter by tabulating the charges in the ledger.
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgment and finds that the Plaintiff’s three pre-suit demand letters (which attach a complete ledger of all charges due) are legally sufficient because each demand letter on its face specifically indicates the dates of service and dollar amount claimed and this amount can be easily verified by referencing and tabulating the claimed dates of service against the accompanying itemization.
