17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1035b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1710MYRT
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — 2007 PIP statute that was in effect at time policy was executed requiring that medical expenses be paid at 80% of reasonable charges, rather than 2008 PIP statute which provides for reduced payment, is applicable
TOTALCARE CHIROPRACTIC VII, INC. d/b/a COAST CHIROPRACTIC CENTER (a/a/o Klein Myrtil), Plaintiff, vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE 08 17164 (54). March 16, 2010. Lisa Trachman, Judge. Counsel: Benjamin G. Partlow, Topkin & Egner, P.L., Deerfield Beach. Dale Parker. Julie Terry.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT I AND FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count I Breach of Contract for Personal Injury Protection Benefits and Final Summary Judgment as to Count II for Declaratory Relief and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court having considered same, and having reviewed the file and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is thereupon:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as follows:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The facts are not in dispute as the parties have filed a joint stipulation of facts.
2. Defendant wrote a policy of insurance to Anize Michel and Klein Myrtil, which had a policy period of July 8, 2007 through January 8, 2008.
3. Defendant’s policy of insurance with Anize Michel and Klein Myrtil provided for personal injury protection coverage of $10,000.00.
4. Klein Myrtil was involved in a motor vehicle accident on December 17, 2007, in which he sustained injuries.
5. Klein Myrtil was afforded coverage for personal injury protection benefits under Defendant’s policy of insurance with Anize Michel and Klein Myrtil, and said policy was in full force and effect on December 17, 2007.
6. As a result of Klein Myrtil’s accident on December 17, 2007, he went to treat with Plaintiff.
7. Klein Myrtil assigned his right to receive insurance proceeds under Defendant’s policy of insurance with Anize Michel and Klein Myrtil to Plaintiff.
8. Plaintiff treated Klein Myrtil from December 18, 2007 through March 3, 2008.
9. Defendant reimbursed Plaintiff within thirty days of the receipt of the bills at issue.
10. For dates of service December 18, 2007 through December 31, 2007, Defendant reimbursed Plaintiff in full at eighty percent of the amount charged.
11. For dates of service January 2, 2008 through March 3, 2008, Defendant reimbursed Plaintiff according to the 2008 version of section 627.736 or 200% of the Medicare and/or Worker’s Compensation fee schedule rates.
12. The only issue to be decided in the instant cause is whether the January 1, 2008 reenactment/revision to the Florida No-Fault Law applies to all dates of treatment occurring on or after January 1, 2008 regardless of the policy inception date, or whether it applies only to those insurance policies which were written on or after January 1, 2008.
II. ISSUES OF LAW
13. This Court notes that the statute which is in effect at the time the insurance policy becomes effective governs the substantive issues arising under that contract. Fidel S. Goldson, D.C., P.A. (a/a/o Trishella Jean-Louis v. Geico Indemnity Co., 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 43b (Cty. Ct. Broward Cty. Sept. 2009) (quoting MR Services, LLC v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 678a (Cty. Ct. Broward Cty. Apr. 2009).
14. Further, Courts may not apply statutory amendments retroactively that modify or impair established substantive rights under a contract. Id. (citing Smiley v. State, 966 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2007).
15. This Court finds that applying the fee schedule contained in the 2008 version of section 627.736 to the subject policy which was written prior to the effective date of the amendment affects substantive rights and thus may not be applied retroactively. Id. (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995).
16. As such, the Defendant may not apply the fee schedule contained in the 2008 amendment to the subject policy and dates of service that were rendered in 2008 because the policy had an effective date prior to the effective date of the amendment.
17. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s motion is granted and the Defendant’s motion is denied.
