23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 315b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2304BROWInsurance — Personal injury protection — Exhaustion of benefits — Absent showing of bad faith, PIP insurer not liable for benefits once exhausted — There is no requirement to set aside reserve fund for disputed claims
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DPI OF NORTH BROWARD, LLC, (a/a/o Christina Brower), Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE-11-008827 (AP). L.T. Case No. COCE-09-10901 (55). USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DPI OF NORTH BROWARD, LLC, (a/a/o Christina Brower), Appellee. Case No. CACE-12-035788 (AP). L.T. Case No. COCE-09-010301 (55). August 13, 2015. Appeal from the County Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Division 55, Sharon Zeller, Judge. Counsel: Douglas H. Stein, Seipp & Flick, Miami, for DPI of North Broward, LLC (a/a/o Christina Brower). Joseph R. Littman, Greenspan Law Firm, P.A., Boca Raton, for USAA Casualty Insurance Company.OPINION
(PER CURIAM.)On February 21, 2014, this Court entered an order staying the instant appeal pending resolution of the appeal of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Oakland Park MRI, Inc., (a/a/o Antonia Gale), 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 22b (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Aug 31, 2011). On March 20, 2014, the Fourth District Court of Appeal entered an order denying the petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari on the merits. Based on the final disposition of said appeal, this Court hereby lifts the stay entered in the instant appeal and renders the following opinion. Having carefully considered the briefs, the Record, and the applicable law, this Court dispenses with oral argument, the final judgment in favor of the defendant ishereby REVERSED AND REMANDED as set forth below.
Under Florida law there is no requirement for a party to set aside a reserve fund for disputed claims, and, in the absence of a showing of bad faith, a PIP insurer is not liable for benefits once exhausted. See USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Oakland Park MRI, Inc., (a/a/o Antonio Gale), 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 22b (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Aug 31, 2011), and Simon v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 904 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D1156b]).
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a) and section 768.79, Florida Statutes, the Appellant’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees is hereby conditionally granted and REMANDED to the trial court for consideration upon the trial court’s determination that United Services Automobile Association’s proposal complies with the requirements of the law, was timely served, and was made in good faith. Appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees is hereby DENIED.
The trial court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs is REVERSED. (ENGLANDER-HENNING, TUTER and MURPHY, JJ., concur.)
