24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 449b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2406MACHInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Otherwise valid demand letter is not invalidated by $5.00 miscalculation in total of medical bills
FAMILY REHAB, INC., a/a/o Zenaida Machado, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 09-07949 SP 26 (04). July 1, 2016. Lawrence King, Judge. Counsel: Tim Snedaker, Corredor, Husseini, & Snedaker, P.A., Miami, for Plaintiff. Charles Prior, Matt Hellman, P.A., for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING DEMAND LETTER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on June 22, 2016 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Demand Letter, and the Court having heard argument, reviewed the record, and otherwise being duly advised finds as follows:
The Plaintiff served a presuit demand letter on the Defendant State Farm. The demand letter attached CMS-1500 forms for dates of service March 11, 2009 through April 29, 2009. The bills totaled $6,524.10. The face of the Plaintiff’s demand letter miscalculated the totaled sum by $5.00 (stating the bills totaled $6,519.10). The Defendant raised the issue as an affirmative defense, and the Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s presuit demand letter substantially complied with the Florida Statute 627.736(10). The purpose of the presuit demand letter is to foster resolution of claims by giving the insurer a second chance to consider a claim. The purpose of PIP is to provide swift and virtually automatic payment of a claim. Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 744 So.2d 679, 683 (Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S1103a]. To invalidate this lawsuit due to a simple and small mathematical error is against the purpose and goals of PIP. The undersigned simply cannot envision that the Florida Legislature, when enacting the presuit demand requirement, envisioned a scenario where a litigant’s otherwise valid presuit demand letter would be invalidated by a small mathematical error.
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
