19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 944a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1911HHOLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Admissions — Amendment — Where, although medical provider has relied on insurer’s admissions for one year, case has not been set for trial or come up for summary judgment hearing and discovery remains to be completed, request to amend admissions to be consistent with affirmative defenses is granted
PONTE VEDRA CHIROPRACTIC & PHYSICAL THERAPY, (A/A/O HELEN HOLLIS), Plaintiff, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for St. Johns County, Civil Division. Case No. SP-10-0450-66. June 22, 2012, Nunc Pro Tunc June 6, 2012. Honorable Charles J. Tinlin, Judge. Counsel: David S. Craig, for Plaintiff. David R. Hwalek, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONTO AMEND ADMISSIONS
THIS MATTER, having come before this Honorable Court on June 6, 2012, upon Defendant’s Motion to Amend Admissions and Defendant’s Second Motion to Amend Admissions. This Court being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
1. The Plaintiff filed suit for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits on March 2, 2010.
2. The Plaintiff alleges there are unpaid benefits for dates of service from November 9, 2009 through November 13, 2009 for services/treatments rendered to Helen Hollis.
3. As this case proceeded under Florida Small Claims Rules, the Defendant did not file an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
4. Plaintiff filed its Requests for Admissions to Defendant on May 5, 2011.
5. Defendant filed its Responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions on June 6, 2011.
6. On January 4, 2012, new counsel for the Defendant filed its Notice of Appearance.
7. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend its Complaint for Damages to add an action for declaratory judgment, which was granted on March 16, 2012.
8. Thereafter, on or about April 11, 2012, the Defendant timely filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses1 in response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Defendant asserted in its Affirmative Defenses, specifically its Fourth Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff lacked standing to file suit as the Plaintiff’s assignment of benefits did not name the Plaintiff, Ponte Vedra Chiropractic and Physical Therapy, but instead named Affordable Chiropractic Medicine.
9. Thereafter, the Defendant filed a Motion to Amend Admission Number 6 (six) on May 1, 2012 wherein Defendant previously admitted that Plaintiff possessed legal standing to contest the Defendant’s refusal to pay Plaintiff’s billing in full as billed for the dates of service sought in this lawsuit. A Second Motion to Amend Admission Number 17 (seventeen) on June 5, 2012, wherein Defendant previously admitted that Plaintiff’s presuit demand letter substantially complied with Florida No-Fault Law, and Plaintiff has satisfied the statutory condition precedent to suit in this case, contained in F.S. 627.736(10). Both motions filed in order to be consistent with its affirmative defenses.
10. The Plaintiff has not yet taken the deposition of the insurer’s adjuster.
11. This case has not been noticed for trial, nor has the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Conclusions of Law
12. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370 which states in part, “Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admissions. Subject to rule 1.200 governing amendment of pretrial order, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits will be subserved by it and the party who obtained the admissions fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice the party in maintaining the action or defense on the merits.”
13. “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(b) requires a liberal application favoring ‘amendment in most cases in order to allow disposition on the merits.’ ” United Automobile Ins. Co. v. Friedman Chiropractic Center, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 29b (11th Judicial Cir. 2010) citing Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So.2d 103, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D991b]. “[t]he insurer clearly moved the trial court to amend its admissions; therefore, Rule 1.370(b) requires that we consider (1) whether amending the admissions will assist in presenting the merits and (2) whether the medical provider satisfied the court that amendment will prejudice it.” Id. The court relies on Ramos throughout, “the defendant filed its motion for relief from admissions prior to the trial court granting summary judgment based upon the defendant’s technical admissions. . .Here, the insurer moved to withdraw its admissions before the summary judgment. . .Under these circumstances, we conclude that amending the admissions will facilitate resolving the merits. We next consider whether amending the admissions will prejudice the medical provider. The medical provider argues that it relied upon the insurer’s admission, regarding the lack of coverage, for two years . . .The medical provider’s reliance argument diminishes when confronted by the fact that the insurer did not depose the claimant until August 6, 2008, approximately a month-and-a-half before the insurer moved to amend its admissions. We conclude that the medical provider did not sufficiently demonstrate that it will suffer prejudice in presenting its civil suit. We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to permit the insurer to amend its admissions prior to the summary judgment hearing.” Id. [emphasis added]
14. The Fourth DCA, in Istache v. Pierre, 876 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D1407a], when presented with a move to amend the responses to the plaintiff’s request for admissions at the beginning of trial pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370, states: “This court has recognized that the rule favors amendments to responses to ensure that a cause is decided on its merits.” Id. citing Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So.2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D991b]. “In this case, the trial court ran afoul of the rule and its purpose. The trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to amend its responses to the plaintiff’s request for admissions.” Id.
15. Therefore, although Plaintiff has relied on those admissions for one year, this case is not set for trial. This case has not come up for a hearing on Summary Judgment, either. The deposition of the Defendant’s corporate representative has not been taken, and discovery remains to be completed. Established case law and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the amendment of the admissions and will be consistent with USAA’s affirmative defenses. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Amend Admission and Second Motion to Amend Admission are granted based upon the supporting case law and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370 supports the amendment. The Defendant has provided an amended response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions #6 and #17 with its motions and those responses are deemed timely filed.
__________________
1The Answer and Affirmative Defenses was timely filed after the Court permitted the Plaintiff to amend its Complaint to include an Action for Declaratory Judgment. Said Declaratory Action automatically invoked the application of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, necessitating that the Defendant file its Answer and Affirmative Defenses.
* * *
