16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 230a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 163QUINO
Insurance — Personal injury protection — There is no legal duty presuit for insurer to provide insured or its assignee with copies of PIP policy, declarations page or PIP log
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS KANG & ASSOCIATES, M.D., P.A., a/a/o JOSE QUINONES, Appellee. Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Seminole County. Case No. 06-114 AP. L.C. Case No. 06-SC-429. February 6, 2009. Appeal from Seminole County Court, Donald Marblestone, Judge. Counsel: Hinda Klein, Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., for Appellant. Kevin B. Weiss, for Appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
[Editor’s note: Lower Court Order at 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1110a]
(PER CURIAM.) On consideration of the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc the court withdraws the previous opinion entered on May 5, 2008, and substitutes the following opinion. For the reasons expressed herein, the trial court’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
After the affirmance herein of the lower court’s final summary judgment that Appellant was required to furnish a PIP log, Appellant moved for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc pointing out the conflict in Seminole County between the decision herein and State Farm v. FEP (Davis), Case No. 06-561AP and State Farm v. Rural Metro (Brown), Case No. 06-85AP which disagreed with the holding herein that New Hampshire Indemnity Company v. Royal Metro Ambulance a/a/o William Zaniboni, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 573 (Fla. 18th Jud. Cir., November 18, 2005) cert. denied (Fla. 5th DCA Case No. 5D-05-4331) is still viable law as it relates to the furnishing of what has come to be known as a PIP log showing dates and amounts of any PIP payouts under the policy.
After the Motion for Rehearing En Banc was granted and the panel members assigned, Appellant moved to stay or abate the action in view of the case pending in the District Court of Appeal which is now known of Progressive American Insurance Company v. Rural/Metro Corporation of Florida, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D2649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). There was no ruling on the motion we now feel that this opinion should be an en banc opinion because Zaniboni was an en banc opinion.
The Progressive American Insurance Company case not only resolves the conflict in the decisions set forth above but resolves all pending issues as to the viability of the Zaniboni case. The District Court of Appeal found that there is no legal duty presuit for an insurance company to provide an insured or its assignee copies of the PIP policy and declarations page, and reiterated its holding in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Florida Emergency Physicians, etc., 978 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) that there is no right to a presuit PIP log. The court did not reverse the Zaniboni decision but rather quoted the language in Zaniboni that nothing in the Florida Statutes requires even the creation of, much less a legal duty to produce, a PIP log. The rest of the Zaniboni case was effectively overruled by the Progressive American Insurance Company case.
We hereby find that Zaniboni no longer has any viability in any of these PIP insurance cases as it relates to a PIP log and to presuit copies of the policy and declarations page, and any right to same must come from the Florida Legislature.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. (SIMMONS C.J., DICKEY J., and PERRY J. concur.)
