17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 25a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1701WARNInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Deposition of insurer’s employees with knowledge of whether database used by insurer as index to establish amount to be paid for claims has been used in inconsistent and inappropriate manner is not relevant to issue of whether database is appropriate means of calculating amount to be paid for claims under insured’s policy — Motion for protective order granted
CHARLES WARNER, Plaintiff vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 1st Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County. Case No. 2009 SC 0728, Division 5. September 11, 2009. Patricia Ann Kinsey, Judge. Counsel: Stacey Penn Clark, for Plaintiff. Edwin V. Valen and Daniel M. Ewert, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
At a hearing in open court on September 10, 2009, the parties appeared through counsel. At issue was defendant’s motion for protective order filed on September 4, 2009, regarding the scheduled deposition of a State Farm employee named Kila Murphey. At the time of the hearing, defendant moved to also include Sara Rhodes in the motion as her name was disclosed yesterday as another employee with information regarding the application of the N.C.C.I. data base to claims submitted to State Farm for payment.
The parties explained to the court that the issue in this PIP case is whether or not State Farm can use the N.C.C.I. data base as the index establishing the amount to be paid in claims submitted pursuant to Mr. Warner’s insurance policy. The witnesses plaintiff wishes to depose have information concerning the actual manner in which this N.C.C.I. data base has been used to determine the amount to be paid for specific medical procedures/treatment which, according to plaintiff, has been in an inconsistent and unpredictable manner. However, the means by which the data base is applied is not relevant to whether or not the data base is appropriate as a means of indexing or calculating a payment amount for plaintiff’s claim under the existing written contract between the parties. Therefore it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant’s motion for a protective order as so Kila Murphey and Sara Rhodes is granted.
