20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 41a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2001STATInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — PIP statute does not authorize medical provider to recover attorney’s fees incurred in responding to insurer’s pre-suit requests for documents and information under section 627.736(6)(b)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TAMPA CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., Defendant. TAMPA CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., a/a/o various State Farm insureds, Counterplaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Counterdefendant. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2010-CA-025678-O. June 12, 2012. Walter G. Komanski, Judge. Counsel: Kenneth P. Hazouri, deBeaubien, Knight, Simmons, Mantzaris & Neal, LLP, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Crystal Eiffert & Chad Barr, Eiffert & Associates, P.A., Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTINGPLAINTIFF/COUNTERDEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING,IN PART, DEFENDANT/COUNTERPLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER came before the Court on March 19, 2012, on the cross Motions for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (“State Farm”), and Defendant/Counterplaintiff, TAMPA CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC. (“TCC”), and the Court having reviewed the Motions, the evidence filed in support of, and in opposition to, the Motions, and the court file, having heard the argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. The issue raised by State Farm’s Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Motion for Summary Judgment is whether or not TCC is entitled to recover from State Farm charges issued by TCC’s attorneys, Eiffert & Associates, P.A., for time spent preparing responses to State Farm’s pre-suit requests for documents and information served pursuant to section 627.736(6)(b), Florida Statutes (“§ 627.736(6)(b)”). State Farm contends that those charges constitute attorneys’ fees that are not recoverable under § 627.736(6)(b).
2. On the other hand, TCC’s Counterclaim and cross Motion for Summary Judgment contend that the charges for which TCC seeks payment from State Farm, which include by way of example the line item in one of Eiffert & Associates, P.A.’s, invoices stating “1.1 hours @ $250 per hour = $275.00,” do not constitute attorneys’ fees and instead constitute costs recoverable under § 627.736(6)(b).
3. As the subject charges seek compensation for time spent by Eiffert & Associates, P.A.’s, attorneys in responding to State Farm’s requests for documents and information pursuant to § 627.736(6)(b), the Court finds that those charges clearly constitute attorneys’ fees and not costs.
4. The statutory language at issue in the subject determination is the following portion of § 627.736(6)(b): “The person requesting such records and such sworn statement shall pay all reasonable costs connected therewith.” (emphasis supplied)
5. In interpreting this statutory provision, courts are bound by the statute’s plain, unambiguous language. As explained by one court:
In analyzing the wording of the F.C.R.A., we must presume that the Florida Legislature stated in Chapter 760 what it meant, and meant what it said. If the statutory wording is unambiguous, then judicial inquiry is complete.
Klonis v. Dept. of Revenue, 766 So.2d 1186, 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2103a](citations omitted).
6. Florida law is clear that as used in Florida statutes, the word “costs” is not generally understood to include attorneys’ fees. E.g., Price v. Taylor, 890 So.2d 246, 252 (Fla. 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly S632a]; Wiggins v. Wiggins, 446 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Fla.1984); Progressive American Ins. Co. v. Rural/Metro Ambulance Corp., 994 So.2d 1202, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D2649a].
7. Applying this well-established rule of law to the plain language of the above-quoted statutory provision from § 627.736(6)(b), the Court concludes that as used therein, the word “costs” does not include attorneys’ fees. The provision does not, therefore, authorize medical providers such as TCC to recover the attorneys’ fees they incur in responding to insurers’ pre-suit requests for documents and information under § 627.736(6)(b).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the cause of action for declaratory relief set forth in State Farm’s Complaint is GRANTED.
2. The portion of TCC’s Motion for Summary Judgment related to TCC’s Counterclaim to determine TCC’s entitlement to recover the attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to State Farm’s pre-suit requests for documents and information under § 627.736(6)(b), as found by the Court in Paragraph 2 above, is DENIED.
3. The Court has determined and hereby declares that TCC is not entitled to recover the attorneys’ fees it incurred in responding to State Farm’s pre-suit requests for documents and information under § 627.736(6)(b) .
4. This Order does not address the arguments set forth in Section D of TCC’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the scope of State Farm’s requests for documents and information under § 627.736(6)(b), or any counter-arguments thereto, all of which remain pending.
* * *
