17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 122a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1702WITK
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Admissions — Medical provider’s motion for summary judgment as to standing is granted where provider relies on insurer’s admission that it has standing and, despite entry of an agreed order allowing insurer relief from admissions and notice of provider’s intent to rely on admission, insurer has not filed motion to amend admission as to standing
AFFILIATED HEALTHCARE CENTERS, INC., as Assignee of Claudia Witkowski, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE. INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 06-10029 SP 05. August 31, 2009. Bronwyn C. Miller, Judge. Counsel: Emilio R. Stillo and Garrett T. Zediker, Florida Trial Team, LLC, Miami, for Plaintiff. Majid Vossoughi, Majid Vossoughi, P.A., Miami, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO STANDING
THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court for reconsideration on Plaintiff’s, Affiliated Healthcare Centers, Inc., a/a/o Claudia Witkowski, Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Standing.
Background. Plaintiff filed suit on June 28, 2006 seeking personal injury protection benefits from the Defendant. The Plaintiff billed the Defendant a total of $4,075.00 dollars. On Jan 8, 2009, the Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses identifying Standing asDefendant’s First Affirmative Defense.
On March 31, 2008, the Plaintiff propounded Supplemental Admissions onto the Defendant requesting the Defendant admit the Plaintiff has standing.
On June 19, 2008, the Defendant responded to the admissions admitting the Plaintiff has standing.1
On July 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Final Summary Judgment as to all issues. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion as to all issues except as to standing and duplicate suit. Plaintiff’s Motion put the Defendant on notice of Plaintiff’s intent to rely on the admission that “the Plaintiff has standing”.
Between July 14, 2009 and August 7, 2009, the Defendant did not file a Motion to Amend their Admission Response admitting Standing. As of the date of hearing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration on August 27, 2009, the Defendant still has not filed a Motion to Amend Admissions responses. The Defendant has proffered no credible explanation for their inaction and lack of diligence with regards to same.
Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.370(b), any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established. In Lutsch v. Smith, 397 So.2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the Court held “as between the parties an admission in a pleading is accepted as a fact without the need of supporting evidence”. In Holland v. CSX Transportation, 583 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991), the Court held that the trial court’s disregard of an admission was error even though the Court was not reminded of the admission at summary judgment.
In Asset Management Consultants of Virginia, Inc. v. City of Tamarac, 913 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the Court held that summary judgment was proper on a “technical” admission. The Court held: “. . .given the lack of diligence in not moving to file belated answers until after the City’s motion for summary judgment was heard, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion”. Id. The Court further held: “there is a point in time at which the opposing party is prejudiced by a tardy request for relief from admissions”.
In the instant case, Plaintiff is not relying on “technical” admissions asthe Defendant has admitted the Plaintiff has standing. Moreover, the Defendant has filed no motion to amend their responses and the Plaintiff has put the Defendant on notice of its intent to rely on the admission. Further, Plaintiff’s affidavit as to Standing presents no facts which would contravene the admission. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to Standing asamatter of law.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion is hereby GRANTED asto Standing. The only remaining issue is the Defendant’s Affirmative Defense of Duplicate Suit.
__________________
1On June 19, 2008, contemporaneous to filing its proposed responses, counsel for the Defendant filed a Motion for Relief from Admissions citing “inadvertence” . The Court entered an Agreed Order on July 11. 2008 allowing the Defendant relief from Admissions.
