22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 271a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2202PERLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Where there is no reasonable explanation for insurer’s failure to inform medical provider of exhaustion of benefits until six months after exhaustion and four months after filing of suit, trial court exercises its inherent authority to impose sanctions for bad faith conduct
ROBERTO RIVERA-MORALES M.D. A/A/O LUCIA PERLAZA, Plaintiffs, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 12-4160 SP 26 (3). November 15, 2013. Michaelle Gonzalez-Paulson, Judge. Counsel: Zachary Hicks, Berger Hicks, Miami, for Plaintiff. Rory Biggins, Kirwan, Spellacy & Danner, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR SANCTIONS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing October 28, 2013 on Plaintiff’s Motion for sanctions against Defendant. The Court has considered said motion; reviewed the court file and all pleadings, the case law, and heard argument of counsel, the Court being otherwise apprised in the premises enters the following ruling.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
The Plaintiff, filed suit on June 15, 2012 for outstanding bills in the amount of $589.78 and alleged that Defendant failed to pay No-Fault benefits in accordance with the law. Six months after the exhaustion and four months after the complaint was filed the Defendant advised the Plaintiff on or about October 5, 2012 that benefits were exhausted in April of 2012. Plaintiff seeks sanctions due to the time incurred in prosecuting this case during the four months as Plaintiff would not have litigated if they would have been advised of the exhaustion prior to the suit. During the 4 months the Defendants continued to litigate the case propound discovery and at no time in the responses claimed Exhaustion. The Defendant, in violation of Court Orders did not finally file its Answer until October 12, 2012, and at that time alleged Exhaustion of Benefits. It is undisputed that at no time prior to October 2012, six months after the exhaustion, did the Defendant advise the Plaintiff or the trial court of the exhaustion.
At the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions on October 28, 2013, the Defendant’s counsel advised that they were not aware of the exhaustion prior to submitting their letter to Plaintiff’s on or about October 2012. The Defendant at the hearing did not provide any reasonable explanation for not advising of the exhaustion in a timely fashion. The Court expressly finds that the Defendant acted in bad faith as there was no reasonable explanation for the Defendant’s failure to advise the Plaintiff of the exhaustion in a timely fashion, and this caused the Plaintiff to unnecessarily incur fees and costs. This Court is aware of its inherent authority to impose sanctions, even in the absence of statutory authority, and this imposition should be done sparingly and cautiously. See Moakley v Smallwood, 826 So.2d 221(Fla 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly S175b]; see also Koch v. Koch, 47 So.3d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2091a]. The Defendant caused an unnecessary waste of time to Petitioner and the Court. The Defendant knew or should have known about the exhaustion in April 2012 prior to the Plaintiff filing the suit or sometime soon thereafter. There was no reasonable argument provided by the Defendant’s counsel to excuse the Defendant from advising the Plaintiff of the exhaustion. However, the Court finds that the Defendant not Defendant’s counsel knew or should have known of the exhaustion prior to suit. Each party is obligated to litigate in good faith. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby GRANTED.
An evidentiary hearing shall be scheduled at a later date where the amount of sanction will be determined by the court.
