17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1042b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1710MUSC
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — 2007 PIP statute that was in effect at time policy was executed, rather than 2008 PIP statute which provides for reduced payment, is applicable — Question certified
RONALD J. TRAPANA, M.D., P.A., a Florida Corporation, (assignee of Muscarella, Frank), Plaintiff, vs. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 08 10581 COCE 53. June 30, 2010. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Russel Lazega, Law Office of Russel Lazega, North Miami, for Plaintiff. Jeffrey B. Tutan, Roig, Tutan, Rosenberg & Zlotnick, P.A., Deerfield Beach and Dale L. Parker, St. Petersburg, for Defendant.[Original opinion at 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 699a]
FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, and CERTIFICATION TO THE FOURTH DISTRICTCOURT OF APPEAL AS A QUESTION AFFECTINGTHE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. § 34.017(1)(b), RULES9.030(b)(4) and 9.160, FLA. R. APP. P.1
THIS CAUSE having come on before the Court on Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s Cross Motions for Summary Judgment on April 19, 2010, and the Court having heard arguments from counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises hereby, FINDS, ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows:
1. By Joint Stipulation of the Parties, the undisputed facts in this case demonstrate as follows:
A. FRANK MUSCARELLA was covered by a policy of insurance which commenced September 21, 2007.
B. On November 18, 2007, Mr. Muscarella was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he sustained personal injuries.
C. Mr. Muscarella received medical services from Plaintiff which were medically necessary, related to the motor vehicle accident, and covered.
D. The date of service at issue, for purposes of this lawsuit, occurred after January 1, 2008.
E. The Plaintiff timely submitted its charges to the Defendant for reimbursement.
F. GEICO timely paid the Plaintiff’s bill in accordance with the No-Fault Statute, in existence in 2008.
2. The Plaintiff alleges that GEICO should have calculated the reimbursements for its bills at 80% of the charged amount, rather than limited the reimbursements in accordance with the formula described in §627.736(5)(a)(2)(f) (2008).
3. After hearing argument, the Court rules in accordance with its prior decisions regarding the 2008 version of the Fla. Stat. § 627.736.
4. Accordingly, it is herby ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Final Summary Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff, RONALD J. TRAPANA, M.D., P.A., 4018 Sheridan St., Hollywood, FL 33021, shall recover from the Defendant, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, 3535 West Pipkin Rd., Lakeland, FL 33811, the principal sum of $2,665.58 together with interest at the rate of 11% pursuant to F.S. § 627.736(4) in the amount of $621.84.
WHEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Final Judgment is hereby awarded to the PLAINTIFF.
CERTIFIED QUESTION
The Court, having considered Defendant’s Motion for Certification of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, further FINDS, ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows:
5. The Court finds that the issue presented by this case should be certified to the Fourth District Court of Appeal 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 less than $10,000, 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. Moreover, circuit appellate courts frequently issue inconsistent rulings.
6. 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’ 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.
7. 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 of the actual “breach” of the contract occurs,2 claims of this nature may continue to arise until the year 2015, or later as the statute has now been in effect for two years.
8. Lastly, while the Plaintiff has not specifically argued the point, challenges to legislative acts raise questions of constitutional significance.
9. 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 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.
10. Specifically, because of the possible conflict within the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit on both the County Court and Circuit appellate levels; the probability that parties will continue to obtain conflicting rulings based upon the “luck of the draw” of which County Judge they are assigned at the trial level and which Circuit Judge they are assigned on appeal: and the fact that this issue likely comes up weekly in each county court civil division in Broward County, this Court certifies to the Fourth District Court of Appeal as being of great public importance:
WHETHER THE FEE SCHEDULES INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATURE’S JANUARY 1, 2008 REENACTMENT/REVISION TO THE FLORIDA NO-FAULT LAW APPLY TO POLICIES, WHEN THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2008 BUT THE TREATMENT WAS RENDERED DURING 2008?
__________________
1Pursuant to Rule 9.160(b), any appeal of the Court’s decision in this matter must be filed in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, and not the Circuit Court.
2State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Lee, 678, So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1996)
