17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 222b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1703LYNN
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Version of PIP statute in effect at time PIP policy was executed, which provided for payment of 80% of reasonable charges, rather than version in effect at time of treatment after expiration of policy, which provides for payment of 80% of 200% of Medicare Part B fee schedule, is applicable — Question certified
OMI OF ORANGE PARK, INC., a Florida Corporation a/a/o Catherine Lynn, Plaintiff, vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE08-11345. January 6, 2010. Linda R. Pratt, Judge. Counsel: Russel Lazega. Julie Terry. Dale Parker.
FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS COURT, having granted Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1088b], orders and adjudges as follows:
1. The 2007 version of the Florida Statute Section 627.736 applies to all treatment Plaintiff, OMI of Orange Park, Inc. a/a/o Catherine Lynn, has provided to Catherine Lynn related to her August 11, 2007 auto accident, regardless of the date that the actual treatment was rendered.
2. Plaintiff, OMI of Orange Park, Inc. a/a/o Catherine Lynn, is the prevailing party and shall recover from the Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company, damages in the amount of $237.18 plus legal interest for which let execution issue. The Court retains jurisdiction to award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs upon timely filed motion.
3. The Court believes that the issue presented by this case should be certified to the Fourth District Court of Appeals to prevent inconsistent results among the State’s 67 Counties and 20 Judicial Circuits. This issue is capable of great repetition in County Courts throughout the State of Florida and, without controlling precedent from a District Court, will be subject to inconsistent results. Since PIP disputes generally concern coverage amounts of $10,000 or less, primary jurisdiction for these cases rests with the County Courts, and appellate jurisdiction with the Circuit Courts. Thus, the normal appellate process cannot lead to a decision which will govern the entire state.
Furthermore, this Defendant alone is currently litigating this issue in hundreds of lawsuits throughout several different counties in the State. Given the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles’s estimates that approximately 250,000 auto accidents involving personal injuries occur annually in Florida, and given the mandatory nature of PIP insurance and the number of insurance carriers operating within the State, this issue will likely be considered by every County, and thus appealed to, every Circuit Court in Florida.
In addition, the dispute concerns a January 1, 2008 change to the PIP law. Since PIP claims are subject to a five (5) year statute of limitations, and since that limitations period does not begin to run until the date that the actual “breach” of the contract occurs,1 claims of this nature may continue to arise until at least the year 2013 or, given the right set of circumstances with a particular insured’s accident date and treatment plan, beyond that date.
For those reasons, the Court believes that a District Court decision will not only ensure uniformity in this disputed area of law for all pending and future cases, but will also serve to avoid the needless waste of judicial resources for County and Circuit Courts throughout the State, as well as the resources of Florida’s PIP insurers and countless known and presently unknown insured individuals.
Additionally, this issue has great Constitutional significance. The enacting legislation states: “Any personal injury protection policy in effect on or after January 1, 2008, shall be deemed to incorporate the provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, as revived and amended by this Act.” The changes to the payment guidelines were to become effective on January 1, 2008, but this Court has determined that, under certain circumstances, those guidelines do not apply to treatments occurring subsequent to January 1, 2008, because to apply them retroactively would unconstitutionally alter substantive rights. Therefore, the Court believes that the District Court’s guidance is needed to address that issue of Constitutional significance.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this Court certifies the following question to the Fourth District Court of Appeal: DOES THE LEGISLATURE’S JANUARY 1, 2008 REENACTMENT/REVISION TO THE FLORIDA NO-FAULT LAW APPLY TO TREATMENT OCCURRING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2008, WHERE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INSURANCE POLICY AND THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT ARE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2008?
__________________
1State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Lee, 678 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1996).
