22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 707b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2206MCCOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Failure to attach reverse side of assignment form that contained only assignor’s signature did not invalidate otherwise compliant demand letter
NEUROLOGY PARTNERS, P.A. D/B/A EMAS SPINE & BRAIN A/A/O ALLISON MCCOTTRY, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, (“STATE FARM”), Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2013-SC-004792, Division F. December 15, 2014. James Ruth, Judge. Counsel: Adam Saben, Shuster & Saben, LLC, Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. James Rinaman, James C. Rinaman, III & Associates, P.A., Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COMPLIANCEWITH F.S. 627.736(10) “DEMAND LETTER”
THIS ACTION came before the Court on October 28, 2014 on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on whether the Plaintiff properly complied with Florida Statute 627.736(10) with respect to sending a compliant Pre-suit Demand Letter (“PDL”). Upon hearing argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court makes the following findings of fact and law:
The issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff’s failure to attach the back side of the single-page assignment of benefits form, which contained just the assignor’s signature, invalidates the Plaintiff’s PDL, thereby requiring the case to be dismissed for failure to comply with a condition precedent of F.S. 627.736(10).
The Florida Supreme in Patry v. Capps, 633 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1994), discussed the level of compliance necessary for a written notice of intent to initiate litigation. Although Patry involved a medical malpractice case, the theory behind the Court’s decision applies in a PIP context as well. The Supreme Court said strict compliance is not necessary when discussing the mode of service of the written notice under section 768.57(2).
As long as the legislative purposes of facilitating the early resolution of claims is met, “there is no reason to construe the provision in a manner that results in an unreasonable denial of access to courts” Patry, at 11.
“Strict compliance with statutory mode of service is unnecessary for notice of intent to file medical malpractice action” Patry, at 12.
“Rule 1.650 was not intended to somehow elevate those provisions of the statute that would otherwise be considered technical matters of form, with which strict compliance is unnecessary” Patry, at 13.
In this case, the requisite information in order for State Farm to evaluate the claim was all contained in the PDL sent by the Plaintiff. The Supreme Court states “we have recently emphasized that when possible the presuit notice and screening statute should be construed in a manner that favors access to court” Patry at 13, citing Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1993). Like the Supreme Court in Patry, this Court finds that the deficiency claimed by the Defendant is merely a technical matter and that the Plaintiff substantially complied with the PDL requirement of F.S. 627.736(10). Also see, Neurology Partners, P.A. d/b/a Emas Spine & Brain a/a/o Sherry Roy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 927a (Order of Duval County Court Judge Gary Flower dated June 4, 2014).
THEREFORE, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
