16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1065b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1611LOCK
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Insured substantially complied with demand letter requirement by sending demand letter, which insurer acknowledged receiving, to correct address of individual designated by insurer for receipt of demand letters, although insured did not specify individual’s name — Standing — Assignment — Where insurer has not presented record evidence that insured executed assignments to the medical providers whose charges are at issue, motion for summary judgment is denied in part, but court will revisit issue if insurer presents record evidence of assignments
LEROY LOCKWOOD, Plaintiff, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit, Orange County. Case No. 08-CC-15099, Division 73. August 4, 2009. Deb S. Blechman, Judge. Counsel: David A. Spain, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Wendy Pepper, Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, et al., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on July 27, 2009 on Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having reviewed the pleadings, record evidence and heard argument from counsel, the court finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff served a PIP pre-suit demand letter on April 23, 2008, which contained the correct address of the individual designated by USAA for receipt of PIP pre-suit demand letters under Fla. Stat. § 627.736(10)(c).
2. The Demand Letter was not specifically addressed to Alan Bunge, the individual designated to receive the demand letters on behalf of USAA.
3. In deposition, Defendant’s adjuster, who was part of the team assigned to respond to pre-suit demand letters, testified that USAA received the demand letter at the designated for PIP demand letters under § 627.736(10)(c).
4. On May 22, 2008, Defendant sent a correspondence to the Plaintiff acknowledging receipt of Plaintiff’s April 23, 2008 demand letter and responding that the demand letter was addressed to the incorrect person, and stating other grounds for non-payment.
5. Based on the aforementioned undisputed facts, this Court finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 627.736(10)(c).
6. Defendant has not presented record evidence that Plaintiff executed assignments of benefits to the providers whose charges are at issue in this lawsuit.
Therefore it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that
1. Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART.
2. This Court will revisit the issue as to whether or not benefits were assigned by the Plaintiff to his medical providers in the event that Defendant presents any and all record evidence of same, (reattach copies) to the Motion for Summary Judgement.
