21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 188a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2102MSOLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Interest — Insurer was statutorily required to pay interest on overdue charges
MARCOS SOLER, an insured individual by and through his/her assignee, TAMPA BAY IMAGING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HALLMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 13-CC-009026, Division J. November 4, 2013. Honorable Gaston J. Fernandez, Judge. Counsel: Michael P. Liebgold, FL Legal Group, Tampa, for Plaintiff. Robert Peterson and Chad Guzzo, Masten, Peterson & Denbo, LLC, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on October 22, 2013 upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having been otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereupon, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Plaintiff/x-ray provider timely submitted its charges for its 7.13.10 date of service to the Defendant PIP insurer per Fla. Stat. 627.736(5)(c).
2. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff’s aforementioned charges within 30 days of receipt of same as is required by Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(b), and thus became overdue.
3. The Defendant ultimately late-paid the aforementioned charges on 12.10.10.
4. The Defendant failed to pay interest on its overdue payment as is required by Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(d).
5. The Defendant responded to the Plaintiff’s PIP pre-suit demand and failed to pay past-due interest for more than two years before this suit was filed.
6. The Plaintiff filed this suit for past due statutory interest on the Defendant PIP insurer’s late-payment of benefits.
7. The Defendant presented argument on its affirmative defenses including invalid pre-suit demand letter and that the interest at issue is de minimus in nature, and this Court rejects same. This Court previously denied Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney’s Fees.
8. This Court finds that based on the argument and legal authority presented, no questions of material fact remain and the Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law.
9. Here, it is clear that the Defendant was statutorily obligated to pay the Plaintiff interest on its overdue charges when it late-paid those charges, and failed to do so.
WHEREFORE, as there are no issues of fact remaining and the Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED with the Court reserving jurisdiction to determine the Plaintiff’s entitlement to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and the amount thereof.
* * *
