21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 580a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106INFAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Small claims — Doctrine of de minimis non curat lex does not preclude small claims action seeking $58.82 in PIP benefits
MIAMI DADE COUNTY MRI, CORP., (a/a/o Lenis Infante), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County. Case No. 13-12633 SP 23 (05). February 25, 2014. Charles K. Johnson, Judge. Counsel: Kenneth J. Dorchak, Buchalter Hoffman and Dorchak, North Miami, for Plaintiff. Elinis Marie German, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DENYING DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO DISMISS ON GROUNDS OFDE MINIMUS NON CURAT LEX
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on February 6, 2014 on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this matter on the grounds of De Minimis Non Curat Lex and afer hearing the argument of counsel present and after having otherwise been fully advised of the premises thereof it is:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion is DENIED.
1. The matter concerns a claim for unpaid personal injury protection benefits.
2. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided medical services to Lenis Infante and thereafter submitted a bill in the amount of $245.43 to the Defendant for payment under a policy which provides personal injury protection insurance benefits.
3. The complaint alleges that the Defendant is liable for 80% of the amount of the submitted bill. The complaint further alleges that the Defendant failed to pay 80% of the medical bill leaving a balance due of $58.82.
4. The Plaintiff filed the instant complaint seeking payment of the balance due plus statutory interest.
5. In response to the complaint the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the amount sought was de minimis and that therefore the complaint should be dismissed.
6. The Court finds that the amount sought is within the jurisdiction of this Court as this matter was filed in small claims under the proscribed jurisdiction amounts of $1.00 to $99.00.
Furthermore, the court finds that the doctrine of de minimis curat lex is not applicable under the facts of this matter. In the matter of Ramirez v. United Automobile Insurance Company, 67 So.3d 1174 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1823a] the Third District Court of Appeal rejected the argument that where the amount of money at issue was insignificant that such provided sufficient grounds for the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary certiorari jurisdiction to the reverse the order under review. Citing to Kneal v. Jay Ben, Inc., 527 So.2d 917 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988) for the proposition that “[w]e do not feel put upon to be required to consider any case, however apparently insignificant, in which our jurisdiction, as here, has been properly invoked.” See also First Real Estate, LLC. v. Grant, 88 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D1353b] — there is no de minimis exception when determining prevailing party’s entitlement to an award of attorneys fees upon appeal.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion is denied.
7. The Defendant shall have 20 days from the date hereof to file its answer to the complaint. Persnickety
* * *
