23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 769a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2307COYLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Abatement of PIP action is not proper remedy for filing demand letter that is defective for failing to account for prior payments made by insurer
JAMES D. SHORTT, M.D., P.A., ala/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. David Denkin, Judge. Counsel: Joshua M. Paquette, Sarasota, for Plaintiff. Roy A. Kielich, Oxendine and Oxendine, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’SREQUEST FOR ABATEMENT
THIS CAUSE having come to be heard on August 21, 2015 upon the Plaintiff’s “Request for Abatement,” filed on August 20, 2015. Having reviewed the file, having heard arguments from counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
1. The Plaintiff has brought the above-styled cause of action seeking allegedly overdue/unpaid Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits due to an automobile accident on July 24, 2013. On December 2, 2014, the Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that the presuit demand letter was invalid for failure to take into account a significant number of prior payments made by the insurer, and as such, did not contain the specificity required by Florida Statute § 627.736(10).
2. In its instant motion, the Plaintiff requests that this Court grant a forty-five (45) day abatement of this action to allow for the Plaintiff to submit a proper presuit demand letter. The Plaintiff argues that abatement is the proper remedy for a prematurely filed suit.
3. The Court specifically finds that because the Plaintiff would be required to do some affirmative act (namely, the submission of a new presuit demand letter), any alleged defect(s) in the original demand letter cannot be cured merely by the passage of time and does not render this lawsuit prematurely filed. Therefore, abatement of this action is not the proper remedy.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that The Plaintiff’s Request for Abatement is DENIED.
