20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 143a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2002SUPEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Medical payments — Coverage — Mobile x-rays — Declaratory judgment — Jurisdiction — Insurer seeking declaration that it is not required to pay PIP and/or MP benefits for mobile x-rays rendered to 37 patients because it was not impractical for these insureds to travel to a stationary facility to have x-rays performed as required by administrative rule — Where provider has admitted that the statute of limitations has run on all its claims, provider has no right to recover any of the benefits at issue, and there is no longer a bona fide, actual, present need for declaration sought by insurer
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, f/b/o its insureds, Plaintiffs, vs. FLORIDA SUPERIOR IMAGING, INC., Defendant. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2008-CA-14715-O, Division, 37. November 29, 2012. Patricia A. Doherty, Judge. Counsel: State Farm-Kenneth Hazouri, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Florida Superior Imaging, Inc.-Coretta Anthony-Smith, Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on October 10, 2012, on Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s cross Motions for Final Summary Judgment and this Court having reviewed the Motions and court file, heard the arguments of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:Factual and Procedural Background
1. On or about December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (collectively “State Farm”) filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief against FLORIDA SUPERIOR IMAGING, INC. (“Florida Superior”) to determine whether State Farm is required to pay personal injury protection (“PIP”) and/or medical payments (“MP”) benefits to Florida Superior for mobile x-rays rendered to 37 patients referred to Florida Superior by Silver Hills Health & Rehab Clinic, Inc.1
2. State Farm’s Amended Complaint alleges that Florida Superior unlawfully rendered mobile x-rays to its insureds because it was not impractical for the insureds to travel to a stationary facility to have the x-rays performed as required by Florida Administrative Code §64E-5.502(1)(a).
3. State Farm’s Amended Complaint sought declaratory relief to determine State Farm’s payment obligations under section 627.736, Florida Statutes, and the subject insurance policies relating to bills submitted by Florida Superior for mobile x-rays rendered to these 37 insureds.
4. At the time State Farm filed this action, Florida Superior did not have any pending breach-of-contract actions against State Farm relating to x-rays provided to the 37 insureds, and Florida Superior has filed no such actions since that time.2
5. On December 15, 2010, Florida Superior moved for leave to amend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, which was granted on October 11, 2011.
6. On October 16, 2011, Florida Superior filed its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses asserting that the “Plaintiff’s action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The underlying issues on which Plaintiff requires declaration took place more than five (5) years prior to the filing of this action and is, pursuant to §95.11 Florida Statutes, barred.”
7. Both parties agree that pursuant to section 95.11, Florida Statutes, the applicable five (5) year statute of limitations has run on any claims that Florida Superior had, or may have had, to recover PIP and/or MP benefits from State Farm or other compensation for the mobile x-rays provided to the 37 insureds. Accordingly, it is undisputed that Florida Superior is barred by the statute of limitations from filing any suit against State Farm for non-payment of the mobile x-rays rendered to the 37 insureds.
8. On March 13, 2012, Florida Superior filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that, as a matter of law, State Farm is not entitled to declaratory relief because there no is bona fide, actual, or present practical need for the declaration since the statute of limitations has run on the subject claims; therefore, there is no question for the court to answer, and this action is moot.
9. On July 17, 2012, State Farm filed a cross Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that, as a matter of law, since Florida Superior has admitted that the statute of limitations has run on all its 37 claims, Florida Superior has no right to recover any of the insurance benefits at issue in this action; therefore, State Farm is entitled to summary judgment declaring that fact.
10. Both parties stipulate that there are no genuine issues of material fact remaining on State Farm’s cause of action for declaratory relief herein.Findings of Law
11. The purpose of a declaratory judgment is to afford parties relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations. Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So. 2d 1167, 1170 (Fla. 1991). Parties seeking declaratory relief must show that:
there is a bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration; that the declaration should deal with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts; that some immunity, power, privilege or right of the complaining party is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; that there is some person or persons who have, or reasonably may have an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, either in fact or law; that the antagonistic and adverse interest are all before the court by proper process or class representation and that the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity. Santa Rosa Cty, Fla. v. Admin. Comm’n, 661 So 2d 1190 (Fla. 1995).
“These elements are necessary in order to maintain the status of the proceeding as being judicial in nature and therefore within the constitutional powers of the courts.” Id. “Thus, absent a need for a declaration based on present, ascertainable facts, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to render declaratory relief.” Id.
12. In the instant case, there is no bona fide, actual controversy for which declaratory relief is needed because due to the expiration of the statutes of limitation, Florida Superior can never recover PIP and/or MP benefits from State Farm or other compensation from the 37 insureds for the subject mobile x-rays rendered to them. As such, State Farm’s rights under the subject policy are no longer dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts.
13. Accordingly, there is no longer a bona fide, actual, present need for the declaration, this action is moot, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the declaratory relief requested in State Farm’s Amended Complaint. See Santa Rosa County, Florida v. Administration Commission, 661 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1995) (wherein the Florida Supreme Court held that when the issues between the parties was rendered moot, there was no longer a bona fide, actual or present need for the declaration; thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. No issue of fact or law exists as to whether the statute of limitations has run on any claim Florida Superior could have filed against State Farm or the 37 insureds to recover unpaid PIP and/or MP benefits or other compensation for the mobile x-rays rendered to those insureds. Therefore, there is no actual, bona fide controversy sufficient to support State Farm’s cause of action for declaratory relief herein.
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
4. Final Summary Judgment is hereby entered on State Farm’s Amended Complaint and the cause of action for declaratory relief set forth therein.
__________________
1State Farm filed its initial Complaint for Declaratory Relief on October 10, 2008, but did not serve same.
2The instant action was consolidated with three (3) previous PIP suits filed by Florida Superior:
Florida Superior Imaging, Inc. (Ruth Polynice) v. State Farm, Case No.: 08-CA-14732
Florida Superior Imaging, Inc. (Arrios Ouanelus) v. State Farm, Case No.: 09-CA-12679
Florida Superior Imaging, Inc. (Edwin Petit-Ignace) v. State Farm, Case No.: 09-CA-12672
However, those three (3) PIP suits were resolved prior to the October 10, 2012 summary judgment hearing and are not subject to this Order.
* * *
