22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1082a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2209HERRInsurance — Personal injury protection — Doctrine of de minimis non curat lex cannot be used to dismiss PIP claim based on amount in controversy
ACTIVE WELLNESS CENTER, INC., (a/a/o Alfredo Herrera), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 13-0366 SP 24. April 16, 2015. Donald J. Cannava, Judge. Counsel: Ryan Peterson, Patiño Law Firm, Hialeah, for Plaintiff. Jennifer E. Pelaez, Vernis & Bowling of Miami, P.A., Miami, for Defendant
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO DISMISS ON GROUNDS OFDE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
In this matter, the Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss this lawsuit because the Complaint only requests $36.00, citing the common law maxim of De Minimis Non Curat Lex. After a review of the briefs by both parties, as well as having a hearing on the matter, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to dismiss.
The Court finds that granting this motion would be a violation of art. I, § 9, of the Florida Constitution (due process), as well as art. I, § 21 of the Florida Constitution (access to Courts). See Doral Health Center, P.A. (a/a/o Gema Salinas) v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 13-120 SP 24 (Fla. 11th Circuit, County Court, 2013) [20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1088b], Gables Insurance Recovery v. Imperial Fire and Casualty Company, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 619a, (Fla. 11th Circuit, County Court, 2014), as well as Radiology Regional Center v. State Farm, 13-24 AP (Fla. 13th Circuit, Appellate, 2015). Additionally, the Court relies upon Ramirez v. United Automobile Insurance Company, 67 So.3d 1174 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1823a] (“[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.”)
The Court finds the cases cited by the defendant to be distinguishable, including Milton v. Blackshear, 8 Fla. 161, 169-70 (1858) (which was decided at a time when due process was not afforded to litigants), as well as United Automobile Insurance Company vs. Marta S. Alfonso, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 887a, (Fla. 11th Circ. App. 2010) (which concerned an insurance company’s accidental miscalculation of interest, as opposed to a reduction of statutorily mandated insurance benefits).
The Defendant is hereby directed to serve an answer to the Complaint within 30 days of this order.
