24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 972b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2411PROBInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Demand letter that failed to take into account prior partial payments made by insurer for the dates of services at issue did not meet requirements of statute
DR. KRISTIN M. KIDGELL, DC, as Assignee of Farrah Probst, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 16-003131-SC (SOUTH). November 18, 2016. Lorraine M. Kelly, Judge. Counsel: C. Spencer Petty, Irvin & Petty, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Plaintiff. Lisa M. Lewis and Edwin V. Valen, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on November 1, 2016 on Defendant’s Motion for Full and Final Summary Judgment and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the Premises, it is hereupon:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby GRANTED. This Court finds that the requirements of Florida Statute §627.736 must be strictly construed. See MRI Associates of America, LLC a/a/o Ebba Register v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 61 So.3d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D960b] (the language of Florida Statute §627.7369(10) requires precision in a demand letter by its requirement that an itemized statement specify “each exact amount.”) Plaintiff’s demand letter dated November 17, 2015 failed to take into account the prior partial payments made by State Farm for dates of service included in the demand letter. As such, this Court finds Tampa Bay Imaging v. Mercury Indemnity Company of America, Case No. 13-000083AP-88B (Fla. 6th Cir. Appellate, December 15, 2014) [22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 504a] distinguishable.
