19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 894a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1910CURTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Permissive statutory fee schedule of section 627.736(5)(a)2 could not be applied where policy made no reference to permissive fee schedule
PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a Florida Corporation (assignee of Curtis, Demetre), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 10 05573 COCE 54. June 19, 2012. Gary R. Cowart, Judge. Russel Lazega, for Plaintiff.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORPARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDINGPOLICY LANGUAGE CONTROLLING OVERPERMISSIVE STATUTORY LANGUAGE
THIS CAUSE came before the court for hearing on May 31, 2012 on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Policy Language Controlling Over Permissive Statutory Language and the court, having reviewed the motion, the court file, legal authorities and having heard argument of counsel, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Policy Language Controlling Over Permissive Statutory Language is GRANTED. Kingsway Amigo Insurance Company v. Ocean Health, Inc. (a/a/o Belizaire Gomez), 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1062a (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Geico Indemnity Company v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2597a (Fla. 3rd DCA 2011); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hallandale Beach Orthopedics, Inc., a/a/o Azriah Fulton, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2665a (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); United Automobile Insurance Company v. Millennium Radiology, LLC a/a/o Luis Rivas, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D71b (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); and DCI MRI, Inc. v. Geico Indemnity Company and Geico Casualty Company, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D170e (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The Court finds that under the holding of the cases cited above, the fee schedule was not permitted to be applied in this case as the applicable policy “made no reference to the permissive methodology of subsection 627.736(5)(a)2.” Id. Plaintiff maintains the burden to prove the treatment and charges at issue were reasonable, related and necessary.
* * *
