22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 953b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2208BEEHInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Where PIP policy provides that insurer will pay lowest of its definition of “reasonable medical expenses,” insurer is entitled to reimburse medical provider’s charges under permissive statutory fee schedule
AXCESS DIAGNOSTICS d/b/a BOWES IMAGING CENTER A/A/O CHRISTINA BEEHLER, Plaintiff, vs. MGA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County. Case No. 2013 SC 4361. January 29, 2015. Robert A. Farrance, Judge. Counsel: Philip McCormick, Shuster & Saben, LLC, St. Petersburg, for Plaintiff. Drew A. Stoller, Roig Lawyers, West Palm Beach, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard very well presented argument of each counsel for the respective parties, and the Court having reviewed the pleadings filed herein, having reviewed the affidavits filed, the Policy of Insurance that is the subject of this Order, the relevant Florida Statutes, all cases cited by the parties, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. The undisputed material facts in the case at bar are set forth in Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment.
2. The issue before this Court is whether the terms of the policy at issue are ambiguous, and specifically the “Reasonable Medical Expenses” section of the policy.
3. This Court does not feel it necessary to reiterate the competing arguments of law of the respective parties as they have been well pled (and recorded at the time of the hearing).
4. This Court supports and concurs with the well reasoned Legal Argument set forth in Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment.
5. After having read the entire MGA policy, this Court acknowledges that it is complex and requires a read and re-read analysis to interpret it, but that doesn’t necessarily make the language ambiguous, and in fact, this Court does not find an ambiguity in the MGA policy language when read in its entirety.
6. This Court has also taken into account and reviewed the difference in money amounts as submitted by Plaintiff that can be determined by the insurer and understands their argument.
7. The MGA policy provides only one method of reimbursement — the “lowest” of its definition of “Reasonable Medical Expenses”.
8. In the case at bar, the charges specified in the Florida No Fault Law §627.736(5)(a)2f are the lowest, and MGA reimbursed Plaintiff 80% of this amount.
Based on the foregoing, Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant, MGA Insurance Company, Inc. is GRANTED. See Kingsway Amigo Insurance Co. v. Ocean Health, Inc. 63 So.3d 63 (4DCA, 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1062a]; GEICO Indemnity Co. v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. 79 So.3d 55 (3DCA, 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D2597a]; GEICO Indemnity Co. v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. 90 So.3d 321 (3D DCA, 2011) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D985b]; DCI MRI, Inc. v. GEICO Indemnity Co. 79 So.3d 840 (4DCA, 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D170e]; & GEICO v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. 2013 WL 333285 (Fla. 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S517a].
