22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1080a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2209MARQInsurance — Personal injury protection — Small claims — Doctrine of de minimis non curat lex cannot be used to dismiss PIP claim in small claims court based on amount in controversy
CALIXTO ALFONSO, JR., DC, PA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION (A/A/O MARQUEZ, RICARDO), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-6453 SP23 (02). April 7, 2015. Caryn Schwartz, Judge. Counsel: Robert B. Goldman, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Nicoholas A. Ferreiro, Bronstein & Carmona, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on April 2, 2015 upon the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, based upon the doctrine of De Minimis Non Curat Lex.1 The Court having considered the motion, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised, DENIES the Defendant’s motion, for the reasons set forth herein. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex is DENIED.
1. This case arises out of a claim for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits filed by the Plaintiff, Calixto Alfonso, Jr., DC, PA, as assignee of Defendant’s insured, Ricardo Marquez.
2. According to the allegations of the Complaint, this is an action for Breach of Contract / Damages, which does not exceed $100.00, exclusive of attorney’s fees and costs. The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff provided medical services to Ricardo Marquez from May 6, 2009 to July 15, 2009 for treatment of injuries sustained in an automobile accident, that Plaintiff submitted bills to Defendant totaling $825.00 for such treatment, that Defendant partially paid for such treatment, that Plaintiff provided Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation in accordance with Sec. 627.736(10), Fla. Stat., but that Defendant refused to issue payment of all sums due, which Plaintiff alleges to amount to $38.70.2
3. According to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, this Court should apply “the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex in this case, because, as the Defendant suggests, “judges, courts, litigators and the judicial system as a whole should not be burdened by lawsuits for such a miniscule amount where the only real basis for the lawsuit is the pursuit of attorney’s fees.”
4. Defendant’s argument is flawed, for a number of reasons.
5. The amount sought by the Plaintiff in this case 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. Sec. 34.041(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat., provides that upon the institution of any civil action in county court, where the claim is less than $100, the party shall pay a filing fee not to exceed $50. As recognized in Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. (a/a/o Bernardino Lang) v. Imperial Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 619a (Miami-Dade County, Judge Lawrence D. King, June 4, 2014) (denying insurer’s motion for summary judgment where the amount in controversy was $5.58) and Doral Health Center, P.A. (a/a/o Gema Salinas) v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1088b (Miami-Dade County, Judge Rodolfo Ruiz, August 8, 2013) (denying State Farm’s motion to dismiss where the amount in controversy was $36), “Chapter 34 of the Florida Statutes does not provide a jurisdictional floor, but rather a ceiling under which actions must be filed in county court.”
6. “If the legislature wanted to impose a floor beneath which a PIP claimant could not sue for damages, it would have said so — but it has not.” Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. (a/a/o Bernardino Lang) v. Imperial Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., supra.
7. Furthermore, while Florida’s No-Fault Statute provides for maximum PIP benefits of $10,000.00, nowhere in the statute is there any indication that a PIP claimant cannot avail itself of the Small Claims Division of the county court. As recognized by the Hon. Lawrence D. King in Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. (a/a/o Bernardino Lang) v. Imperial Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., supra, “the PIP statute does not set a floor under which an insured or medical provider may not sue for insurance benefits.”
8. In that case, Judge King expressed concern over the fact that “relatively small amounts tend to aggregate very quickly when multiplied by the hundreds of thousands of PIP policyholders in Florida, resulting in a handsome profit to insurers if they can succeed in having their insureds’ claims dismissed by application of the de minimis doctrine,” further observing that dismissing PIP claimant’s lawsuits based upon that doctrine would potentially result in “windfalls to insurers who would reap extreme benefits by underpaying PIP claims throughout the state.”
9. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, the Constitution of the State of Florida provides an unequivocal guaranty of the right of access to the courts for all claims, irrespective of the amount in controversy. See, e.g., Art. 1, § 21 (“The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”); Art. V, §20 (which does not establish a minimum amount in controversy before a case may be filed in county court).
10. In Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. (a/a/o Lenis Infante) v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 580a (Miami-Dade County, Judge Charles K. Johnson, February 25, 2014), another PIP lawsuit in which the court denied State Farm’s motion to dismiss the case, based upon the assertion that the $58.82 amount in controversy was de minimis, the Hon. Charles K. Johnson cited to the Third District opinion in Ramirez v. United Automobile Ins. Co., 67 So.3d 1174 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1823a], where the appellate court rejected the insurer’s argument that the “insignificant” amount of money at issue provided sufficient grounds for the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary certiorari jurisdiction to reverse the order under review.
11. In rejecting that argument, the Ramirez Court observed:
There is nothing in the stated requirements for the invocation of our certiorari jurisdiction — or any other part of our duties — which turns on the amount involved. We 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. Indeed, it is the [respondent’s] position which is utterly devoid of merit, [that] has caused whatever unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources this case involves.
Citing Kneale v. Jay Ben, Inc., 527 So.2d 917, 918 n. 1 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988)
12. As Judge Ruiz observed in Doral Health Center, P.A. (a/a/o Gema Salinas) v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., supra, there is little question that the amount in controversy — $38.70 — is a minimal amount. But as Judge Ruiz also concluded in that case:
But to find this amount ‘trifling’ and thus non-justiciable under the de minimis doctrine would require the Court to go outside the four corners of the instant Complaint, and thereby deviate from the appropriate standard of review. Furthermore, it is not for the Court to speculate whether the allegedly overdue benefits sought in this case are being utilized as a gateway to obtaining attorney’s fees under Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law. The Court must simply accept as true all well-plead allegations regarding the denial of PIP benefits.
13. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss based upon the legal principle of De Minimis Non Curat Lex is DENIED.
__________________
1De Minimis Non Curat Lex is defined as “the law does not concern itself with trifles”. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999)
2Complaint, paragraphs 1, 4, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18
