21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 266a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2103MOREInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Areas of inquiry in deposition of litigation adjuster are limited to exclude questions as to how insurer calculated payments, which are not relevant since medical provider has burden to prove reasonableness of charges
BEACHES OPEN MRI OF JACKSONVILLE, as assignee of COREEN MOREHOUSE, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2012-SC-2965, Division CC-N. November 8, 2013. Honorable Gary Flower, Judge. Counsel: Melissa Lewis, Gordon & Doner, Palm Beach Gardens, for Plaintiff. David M. Gagnon & Gina P. Grimsley, Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONPROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (“State Farm’s”) Motion for Protective Order, and this Court having heard argument of counsel and having further considered the relevant pleadings and case law provided to the Court, finds that State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff, Beaches Open MRI of Jacksonville, a/a/o Coreen Morehouse (“Plaintiff’ or “Beaches Open MRI”) may proceed with deposing Tommy Gambrell in his capacity as litigation adjuster, but not as a corporate representative, on November 15, 2013.
Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c), this Court has broad power to regulate taking depositions and may enter an order to protect a party from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense that justice requires.” Here, it is within this Court’s power to grant State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order because the scope of Plaintiff’s purported corporate representative deposition is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks matters not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.
Case law confirms that how State Farm calculated its payments is irrelevant because it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove the amount it charges is reasonable. Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. St. Germain Chiropractic, Case No. 2005-CA-11053, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 758a (9th Jud. Cir. Ct., Orange Cty. (Appellate) May 25, 2007) (“It is Respondent’s burden to prove that its charges were reasonable. In meeting this burden, finding out the reasons underlying the amount Petitioner pays its claims is totally irrelevant.”) (citations omitted); Arzina Ginel v. Progressive Select Ins. Co., Case No. 2008-CA-34613, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 972a (9th Jud. Cir. June 3, 2010) (“Ginel is seeking information regarding the legal authority for Progressive’s payment based on a 200% Medicare fee schedule. This information, based on the holdings from St. Germain and Nationwide, is not relevant to a claim for PIP benefits”); see also Derius v. Allstate Indem. Co., 723 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1383a] (reasonableness and necessity are essential elements of a plaintiff’s case seeking personal injury protection benefits).
The areas of inquiry in Tommy Gambrell’s deposition shall be limited to: the payment of bills referenced in Plaintiff’s Complaint; the subject Policy of insurance and all endorsements thereto; and State Farm’s affirmative defenses. Additionally, because the document requests in Plaintiff’s duces tecum likewise sought discovery into matters outside the scope of this litigation, State Farm shall not be required to produce any materials at Tommy Gambrell’s deposition aside from the relevant and non-privileged portions of the claim file and any additional materials State Farm already produced in discovery in this case.
It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order is hereby GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff may proceed with deposing Tommy Gambrell in his capacity as litigation adjuster, but not as a corporate representative, on November 15, 2013.
* * *
