20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 518a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2005ALGUInsurance — Personal injury protection — Small claims — Doctrine of de minimis non curat lex does not preclude small claims action seeking less than $100 for breach of contract and unpaid PIP benefits
KAROW CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, P.A. (Patient: Ronny Alguera), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Civil Division. Case No. 502012SC012645XXXXSB. February 5, 2013. Honorable Reginald R. Corlew, Judge. Counsel: Christopher E. Marshall, Ellis, Ged & Bodden, P.A., Boca Raton, for Plaintiff. Stephen Rosansky, Goldstein Law Group, Fort Lauderdale, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TODISMISS BASED ON DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
THIS CAUSE, having come before this Honorable Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based Upon the Legal Principle of De Minimis Non Curat Lex, and the Court having reviewed the pleadings, heard argument of counsel, and otherwise being fully advised of the case, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss Based Upon the Legal Principle of De Minimis Non Curat Lex is DENIED as follows:
1. This is a breach of contract action for failure to provide personal injury protection benefits;
2. Plaintiff brought this action for an amount less than $100.00;
3. Defendant requested the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s action based on the legal principle of de minimis non curat lex;
4. This Court heard the arguments of counsel and requested that counsel supplement the record with memorandum of law in support of their positions;
5. This Court finds the following:
a. 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;
b. Since there is no binding case law in Florida on the application of de minimis non curat lex to personal injury protection matters, the court is limited to the controlling provisions of both the Constitution of the State of Florida and Florida State Statutes;
c. The Constitution of the State of Florida, Article V, Section 20, authorizes the jurisdiction of the county court and does not provide a minimum amount in controversy, but rather it only creates a ceiling which would place the case into the jurisdiction of the county court;
d. Florida Statute § 34.041, establishes a schedule of filing fees one must pay to initiate a suit in the county courts of Florida, and the same schedule includes claims for less than one hundred ($100.00) dollars; and
>BLOCKQUOTE< e. The Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law was statutorily created and specifically references a right to bring a cause of action for overdue benefits and recognizes an award of attorney’s fees and costs for the prevailing party1.
6. Therefore, where the State of Florida clearly provides a legal forum for small claims, based upon the statutory rights to seek overdue personal injury protection benefits under Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, an application of the principle of de minimis non curat lex, and the position that there is no justification for personal injury protection litigation in small claims matters is in direct contravention to the legislative intent of Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.
__________________
1 Florida Statutes §§ 627.730-627.7405 (2008)
* * *
