18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1197a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1811METE Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Affirmative defenses — Insurer cannot raise alleged violation of administrative rules related to enforcement of and compliance with Health Care Clinic Act as affirmative defense
UNITED HEALTH & REHAB ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA INCORPORATED aao MARLENE METELLUS, Plaintiff, vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2009-SC-6707. March 10, 2011. John E. Jordan, Judge. Counsel: Joseph P. Gleason, Gonzalez & Associates, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Aaron E. Leviten, Allen, Kopet & Associates, for Defendant.
[Editor’s note: See FLWSUPP 2201METE].
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come on before the Court to be heard on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, originally filed with this Court on or about November 1, 2010 and after argument of the parties and otherwise being duly advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is hereby denied.
2. This Court holds that the statutory framework and relevant administrative code provisions cited by Defendant related to the enforcement and compliance with the Health Care Clinic Act, Florida Statutes 400.990-400.995 are regulatory in nature and do not create any private cause of action for violation of the regulations. To allow GEICO’s affirmative defense to deny coverage or payment of PIP benefits based upon alleged violation of an administrative rules and regulatory statute improperly would create such a cause of action.
