16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 92a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Exhaustion of policy limits — Insurer is not required to set aside reserve for disputed claim and, in absence of bad faith, insurer is not liable for benefits once benefits have been exhausted
JACKSONVILLE SPINE & INJURY CENTER, P.L., As Assignee of KATECIA GREEN, Plaintiff(s), v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Insurance Company, Defendant(s). County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2007-SC-010634-XXXX, Division M. October 10, 2008. Kevin A. Blazs, Judge. Counsel: Joseph V. Camerlengo, Jacksonville. James C. Rinaman, III, James C. Rinaman, III & Associates, P.A., Jacksonville.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Original Opinion at 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 907b]
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard at the September 18, 2008 hearing on the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Final Judgment RE: Exhaustion of PIP Benefits, as filed with the Clerk on July 25, 2008, and this Court, having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised of the premises therein, finds that Progressive American Insurance Company v. Stand-Up MRI of Orlando, __So.2d __ (5th DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D1746a], as rendered by the 5th District Court of Appeal contemporaneous with this Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on July 11, 2008, holds that “. . . no requirement exists to set aside a reserve for a disputed claim, and, in the absence of a showing of bad faith, a PIP insurer is not liable for benefits once benefits have been exhausted” and that the foregoing case is controlling and it is, therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1 The Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment RE: Exhaustion of PIP Benefits is hereby GRANTED.
2. This Court’s July 11, 2008 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE.
3. The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as served on December 4, 2007 and as heard on April 24, 2008, is hereby GRANTED, there being no material issue of disputed fact, and that Summary Judgment is hereby entered against the Plaintiff and for the Defendant, with prejudice.
4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction for 90 days from the date of the entry of this Order for the purpose of determining entitlement to, and amount of, attorney’s fees and court costs.
