22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 266a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2202BRULInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Statute requires that demand letter state exact amount of each charge, not exact amount owed by insurer

MOORE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., AS ASSIGNEE FOR PAYTON BRULE, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Clay County. Case No. 2012-CC-656 C. September 16, 2014. Timothy R. Collins, Judge. Counsel: Adam Saben, Shuster & Saben, Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. David Gagnon, Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS cause came to be heard on the Plaintiff’s & Defendant’s opposing Motions for Summary Judgment and both parties appearing through counsel and agreeing that the issue presented (whether the demand letter is legally sufficient pursuant to Section 627.736(10)) is dispositive of the case, the Court finds as follows:

A. Plaintiff sent a letter to the Defendant pursuant to Section 627.736(10). Both parties seem to agree that the demand letter is sufficient in all respects except for whether the demand letter must state with specificity the exact amount owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

B. Such a reading is not consistent with the statute and such an amount is virtually impossible for a claimant to calculate based upon the various factors which are only known to the insurer. The statute requires the claimant provide the exact amount of each charge by the provider, not the exact amount owed by the insurer. If this were not the case, then how could “statements and bills for medical services” described in Section 627.736(5)(d) be a sufficient alternative.

Therefore, it is,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted.

2. The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied.