18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 663b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1808MRI
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Statutory provisions and policy language requiring that insurer pay 80% of reasonable amounts control over permissive statutory fee schedule
MRI ASSOCIATES OF ST. PETE D/B/A SAINT PETE MRI, as assignee, Plaintiff, vs. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, INFINITY ASSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INFINITY INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY and INFINITY SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Circuit Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 10-CA-021564, Division D. March 21, 2011. Michelle Sisco, Judge. Counsel: Lorca Divale, The Divale Law Group, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Plaintiff. Terry Swartz, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on March 15, 2011 concerning the “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” filed by Plaintiff MRI Associates of St. Pete, d/b/a Saint Pete MRI, as assignee, against the Defendants, Infinity Insurance Company, Infinity Auto Insurance Company, Infinity Assurance Insurance Company, Infinity Indemnity Insurance Company, and Infinity Select Insurance Company. The Court, having considered the motion, any response thereto, the arguments of counsel, and the court file, and being otherwise advised in the premises,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. There are no genuine issues of material fact, and the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law concerning its claims for declaratory relief and damages against these Defendants. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot based on the “Florida Amendatory Endorsement” attached to its own Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
2. This Court agrees with and adopts the reasoning set forth in MRI Associates of St. Pete, d/b/a Saint Pete MRI, as assignee of Craig Volpe v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 686a (Fla. Hillsborough Cty. Ct. May 20, 2010) and State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 21 So.3d 904 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D2275b]. In accordance with those decisions, this Court concludes and declares as a matter of law that that Section 627.736(1)(a), 627.736(5)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2008-2010) and the “reasonable” amount methodology described in the insurance policy control and supersede the mere permissive fee schedule provisions of Section 627.736(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2008-2010).
3. Consequently, the Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
4. The Defendants admit Plaintiff’s charges were reasonable, necessary and related to the accidents at issue. Consequently, the Court finds that, pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Section 627.736(1)(a), 627.736(5)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2008-2010) and the payment methodology expressly described in the insurance policies, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages based on 80% of the reasonable amounts, as alleged in the complaint, and judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants. Said damages are limited to the balance owed to the Plaintiff, not to exceed the policy limits of each assignor.
5. The Court hereby reserves jurisdiction to consider any claims for attorneys’ fees and costs.
