17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 27a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1701HANS
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter was sufficient although it contained two bills that were in excess of what was in dispute in suit
ROBBY G. HANSEN, D.C., as assignee of Valerie Scoon, Plaintiff, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant. County Court, 2nd Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County. Case No. 2008 CC 004913. October 1, 2009. Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Matthew Scanlan. Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Tallahassee.
Cert. Denied 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1151b
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PIP DEMAND LETTER)
THIS CAUSE came on for consideration on August 6, 2009, on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the validity of Plaintiff’s PIP pre-suit demand letter, is hereby DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complied with Section 627.736(10), otherwise known as the PIP pre-suit notice provision, by providing a sufficient itemized statement even though the itemized statement contained two bills that were in excess of what is in dispute in this lawsuit.
3. The itemized statement used by Plaintiff detailed what was being demanded, as was contemplated in the pre-suit notice statute, and the itemized statement gave USAA the opportunity to investigate and pay, or not pay, the claim. USAA made the decision not to pay.
