22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 20a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201MACLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Motion for rehearing of opinion concluding that trial court erred in finding that demand letter with itemized billing ledger did not meet statutory requirements for demand letter is denied
BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a/a/o Ramsay Macleish, Appellant, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 6th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Pinellas County. Case No. 13-000034AP-88A. UCN 522013AP000034XXXXCI. July 16, 2014. Counsel: David M. Caldevilla and Michael R. Bray, de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa; and Russel Lazega and Yasmin Gilinsky, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Appellant. Douglas H. Stein and Stephanie Martinez, Seipp, Flick & Hosley LLP, Miami, for Appellee.
ORDER DENYING APPELLEE’SMOTION FOR REHEARING
[Original Opinion at 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 858a]
THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration of the Appellee, USAA Casualty Insurance Company’s, “Motion for Rehearing,” filed on May 22, 2014; Appellant, Bayfront Medical Center, Inc.’s Response in Opposition to the motion filed on June 5, 2014; and Appellee’s Reply filed on June 26, 2014. After consideration of the motion, response, reply, the record, and applicable law, this Court finds as follows:
Appellee argues that this Court erred when it found as a matter of law that Appellant had substantially complied with section 627.736(10)(b), Florida Statutes (2008). It is asserted that the issue of whether there had been statutory compliance is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.
In the present case, the trial court determined from the undisputed evidence that there was no issue of fact and concluded as a matter of law that the demand letter at issue did not substantially comply with the requirements of section 627.736(10)(b). The trial court held that attaching the original itemized bill to the demand letter did not cure the noncompliance. Summary judgment was entered for Appellee and the case was dismissed for failure to meet a condition precedent to filing the action.
This Court acting in its appellate capacity reviews de novo an order granting summary judgment. See JP Morgan Chase v. New Millennial, LC, 6 So. 3d 681, 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D585a]. In our de novo review, the demand letter with the itemized billing ledger was examined to determine if the requirements of the statute had been met. An evaluation of the trial court’s legal determination was made and this Court concluded that the trial court erred when it found as a matter of law the demand letter with the attached itemized billing ledger did not meet the statutory requirements. The opinion states:
This Court finds that the attached itemized billing ledger for the procedures performed on March 20, 2008, complies with section 627.736(5)(d), as referenced in section 627.736(10)(b)(3). Therefore, contrary to the trial court’s finding, the Demand Letter with the attachment meets the requirement for an “itemized statement specifying each exact amount, the date of treatment, service, or accommodation, and the type of benefit claimed to be due” in section 627.736(10)(b)(3).
There were no material issues of fact to be determined. This Court properly reversed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing Appellant’s cause of action for the alleged failure to meet a condition precedent. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings as the condition precedent had been met.
The Court will not grant a rehearing to Appellee.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Appellee, USAA Casualty Insurance Company’s, “Motion for Rehearing” is DENIED. (ALLAN, SCHAEFER, and MEYER, JJ.)
