fbpx

Case Search

Please select a category.

NEUROLOGY PARTNERS, PA., d/b/a EMAS SPINE & BRAIN SPECIALISTS AS ASSIGNEE FOR HEATHER SMITH, Plaintiff, vs. ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 751b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2307HSMIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — PIP policy that advises that medical benefits means 80% of all reasonable and medically necessary expenses at 200% of amount allowed under physician schedule of Medicare Part B clearly and unambiguously elects to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule

NEUROLOGY PARTNERS, PA., d/b/a EMAS SPINE & BRAIN SPECIALISTS AS ASSIGNEE FOR HEATHER SMITH, Plaintiff, vs. ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2015-SC-003815. November 23, 2015. Honorable John A. Moran, Judge. Counsel: Adam Saben and Melissa Winer, Shuster & Saben, LLC, Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Brendan N. Keeley and Eric S. Shubow, Baumann, Gant & Keeley, P.A., Jacksonville, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, ESURANCEPROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY’S,MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Defendant, ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY’s, Motion to Dismiss, and the arguments of all parties being heard, it is hereupon,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion is GRANTED with Prejudice; and

IT IS ALSO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that relative to Defendant, ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY’s amended policy provisions, this Court finds that the amendment clearly and unambiguously advises the patient and the medical providers that medical benefits means 80 percent of all reasonable and medically necessary expenses at 200 percent of the amount allowed under the physician’s schedule of Medicare Part B; therefore, this Court finds that Defendant, ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY’s Policy of Insurance conforms with Geico Indemnity Company v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S517a].

Skip to content