20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1088b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2011SALIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Doctrine of de minimis non curat lex does not preclude action seeking $36 in unpaid PIP benefits
DORAL HEALTH CENTER, P.A., a/a/o GEMA SALINAS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 13-120 SP 24. August 8, 2013. Rodolfo Ruiz, Judge. Counsel: Ryan Peterson, for Plaintiff. Terrance Hill and Deborah Braile, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISSBASED UPON DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based Upon the Legal Principle of De Minimus Non Curat Lex, filed on May 31, 2013. The Court, having reviewed the record and the parties’ filings, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Based Upon the Legal Principle of De Minimus Non Curat Lex is DENIED for the reasons set forth herein.
BACKGROUND
On January 28, 2013, counsel for Plaintiff, DORAL HEALTH CENTER, P.A. (“Doral Health”), filed a Complaint seeking to recover damages in the form of Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits for services allegedly rendered pursuant to a policy of insurance issued by Defendant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (“State Farm”). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that State Farm has failed to make payment of all of the No-Fault benefits and/or medical payments due under the policy at issue, and indicates that the amount in controversy is thirty-six dollars ($36.00). Given this minor sum, Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint based upon the legal principle of de minimis curat lex, a legal maxim meaning “[t]he law does not notice or concern itself with trifling matters.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1630 (7th ed. 1999). State Farm maintains that the thirty-six dollars ($36.00) at issue is a de minimis, or trifling amount, and therefore the instant claim should be dismissed as non justiciable.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to determine whether a complaint properly states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1956). A court must confine its review to the four corners of the complaint, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the pleader, and accept as true all well-plead allegations. Morin v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 963 So. 2d 258, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D1732a]; Taylor v. City of Riviera Beach, 801 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D2598a]. It is not for the court to speculate whether the allegations are true or whether the pleader has the ability to prove them; the sole question is whether, assuming all the allegations in the complaint to be true, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief requested. Id.; see also Huet v. Mike Shad Ford, Inc., 915 So. 2d 724, 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2728b]. These legal standards guide this Court’s analysis and determination of the pending Motion.
ANALYSIS
Florida courts have historically utilized the de minimis doctrine to dismiss cases where the damage amounts are “so trifling, that . . . [the court is] indisposed . . . to subject the parties to additional costs, which would probably amount to more than the actual excess of the verdict.” Milton v. Blackshear, 8 Fla. 161, 170 (Fla. 1858); see also Loeffler v. Roe, 69 So. 2d 331, 337 (Fla. 1953) (applying de minimis doctrine to an encroachment of real property); McLaughin v. Block, 159 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (holding that it is within the Court’s discretion to use the de minimis doctrine, which is one “of convenience — one that has its purpose the relief of the courts from trivial matters.”); Fla. Nat’l Bank v. Bisson, 240 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (affirming judgment in part based on de minimis non curat lex).
Accordingly, the de minimis doctrine often comes into play when the amount in controversy is minimal, or where the defendant performs almost all of its contractual obligations, but underpays or overcharges some small amount. See, e.g., Fla. MRI, Inc. v. All State Indemnity Co., 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 417b (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2011) (dismissing complaint under de minimis doctrine because the $4.37 amount of damages sought was trifling in nature); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Alfonso, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 887a at 5 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. App. Jul. 1, 2010) (reversing entry of summary judgment and remanding with directions that complaint be dismissed because interest miscalculation had resulted in $2.53 amount at issue “ ‘so trifling’ as to preclude the very litigation at issue.”) (quoting Milton, 8 Fla. at 170); Peachtree Casualty Ins. Co. v. Spine & Rehab Medicine, P.A., 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 622a (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. App. May 1, 2009) (Barton, J., dissenting) (finding dismissal of the case appropriate under the de minimis doctrine given that the amount in dispute was $0.89).
Despite the aforementioned case law, all of which is either distinguishable or nonbinding, this Court finds that Florida law does not support a position of de minimis non curat lex in small claims personal injury protection matters for breach of contract and unpaid benefits. See Karow Chiropractic Center, P.A. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 518a (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2013) (finding that application of de minimis doctrine would improperly limit legal forum for small claims and contravene the intent of Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law). The Constitution of the State of Florida unequivocally guarantees a right of access to the courts for all claims, irrespective of the amount in controversy. See Fla. Const. of 1968, art. 1, § 21 (“The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”). This right of access is bolstered by Article V, Section 20, which does not require a minimum amount in controversy before a case may be filed in county court. See id. at art. V, § 20(4) (establishing jurisdiction of county courts).
Similarly, Chapter 34 of the Florida Statutes, which addresses the jurisdictional limits of the county courts, does not provide a jurisdictional floor, but rather a ceiling under which actions must be filed in county court. See Fla. Stat. § 34.01 (2013) (limiting amount in controversy to $15,000.00). In fact, Section 34.041, which establishes the schedule of filing fees to initiate a small claims suit in the county courts of Florida, unequivocally permits proceedings for claims less than $100.00. See Fla. Stat. § 34.041 (2013). Moreover, the Florida Small Claims Rules do not require a minimum amount in controversy, as the rules are “applicable to all actions at law of a civil nature in the county courts in which the demand . . . does not exceed $5000 exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees.” Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.010(b); see Metro Ford, Inc. v. Green, 724 So. 2d 706, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D279a] (holding that “[s]mall claims courts were established to provide an open forum for the speedy resolution of disputes over minor claim.”) (emphasis added).
Consequently, dismissal of the instant case pursuant to the de minimis doctrine would not only consist of a denial of the right of access to the courts guaranteed by the Florida Constitution, but also contravene the very purpose of small claims court. In addition, Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, which statutorily provides a right to bring a cause of action for overdue benefits, does not require a minimum amount in controversy. See Fla. Stat. §§ 627.730-627.7405 (2013). Therefore, dismissal of the instant case simply because the overdue benefits are minimal in nature would also appear to directly contravene Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.
Finally, this Court notes that de minimis non curat lex is an ancient legal maxim rife with the potential for abuse. The doctrine grants nearly unfettered judicial discretion to deem certain matters substantial and others trivial based upon the amount at issue. There is no doubt that it was designed to maximize efficiency and enable courts, already limited in time and resources, to focus on more pressing matters. But as set forth above, Florida law makes clear that no claims are too small for small claims court, and this Court is wary of determining whether a given lawsuit should survive a motion to dismiss simply by studying the amount in controversy.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the purpose of a motion to dismiss is to determine whether a complaint properly states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. There is little question that the amount in controversy — $36.00 — is a minimal amount. But to find this amount “trifling” and thus non-justiciable under the de minimis doctrine would require the Court to go outside the four corners of the instant Complaint, and thereby deviate from the appropriate standard of review. Furthermore, it is not for the Court to speculate whether the allegedly overdue benefits sought in this case are being utilized as a gateway to obtaining attorney’s fees under Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law. The Court must simply accept as true all well-plead allegations regarding the denial of PIP benefits. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Based Upon the Legal Principle of De Minimis Non Curat Lex is DENIED.
* * *
