20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1096b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2011FRAGInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — PIP insurer was not entitled to limit reimbursement pursuant to Medicare Part B fee schedule where permissive statutory fee schedule is not properly incorporated into policy
MR SERVICES I, INC., D/B/A C&R IMAGING OF HOLLYWOOD, (Gabriel Fraga), Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 12-14501 COCE (53). September 4, 2013. Honorable Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Abdul-Sumi Dalal, Lander, Dalal and Associates, P.L., Ft. Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Douglas G. Brehm, Miami, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on August 29, 2013 for hearing of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Defendant Allstate’s Omnibus Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court’s having reviewed the Motions, the entire Court file, and the relevant legal authorities; having heard argument; having made a thorough review of the matters filed of record; and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
As loss, coverage, reasonableness, relatedness, and necessity has been stipulated to by the parties, the only issue before this Court is whether the Defendant properly incorporated F.S. 627.736(5)(a)(2) which would allow the Defendant to limit reimbursement of Plaintiff’s charges pursuant to Medicare Part B fee schedule. After reviewing Defendant’s insurance policy and applicable endorsements, F.S. 627.736, relevant legal authorities including but not limited to: Geico General Insurance Co. v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., 2013 WL 3332385, 38 Fla. L. Weekly S517a (Fla. July 3, 2013), Kingsway Amigo Ins. Co. v. Ocean Health, 63 So.3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1062a]; oral arguments; and Defendant’s submission of GEICO’s 2011 policy in comparison to Allstate’s policy, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
2. Final judgment for Plaintiff is proper.
* * *
