Case Search

Please select a category.

JAMES D. SHORTT, M.D., P.A., a/a/o BETTY COYLE, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 769b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2307BCOYInsurance — Personal injury protection — Continuance pending discovery — Motion to continue hearing on insurer’s motion for summary judgment challenging demand letter in order to allow completion of discovery is denied — Requested discovery is not likely to produce evidence material to demand letter issue

JAMES D. SHORTT, M.D., P.A., a/a/o BETTY COYLE, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County. Case No. 2014-CC-003756 NC. September 2, 2015. Honorable David Denkin, Judge. Counsel: Joshua M. Paquette, Sarasota, for Plaintiff. Roy A. Kielich, Oxendine and Oxendine, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING INPART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUEHEARING OF DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ORDERTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on August 21, 2015 upon the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Continue Hearing of Defendant[‘s] Motion for Summary Judgment in Order to Complete Discovery,” filed on August 20, 2015. Having reviewed the file, having heard arguments from counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth below:

1. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Hearing of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED as it pertains to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding challenges to the Plaintiff’s compliance with the pre-suit demand letter requirements set forth in Florida Statute § 627.736(10). This Court specifically finds that the requested continued discovery (specifically, the deposition of the Defendant’s Corporate Representative) is not likely to produce evidence material to the resolution of this issue, which is a pure question of law.

2. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Hearing of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED as it pertains to the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding issues of reasonableness of the charges and reimbursements made by the Defendant.

Skip to content