24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 927c
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2411NORTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer pursuant to section 627.736(5)(b)1.c. where there were material issues of fact as to whether provider knowingly submitted false or misleading statements
NORTH BROWARD HEALTH & REHAB, INC., Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case Nos. CACE13-020672(AP) & CACE14-008440 (AP). L.T. Case No.CONO12-009922. February 13, 2017. Appeals from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. Steven P. DeLuca, Judge, and Louis H. Schiff, Judge. Counsel: Marlene S. Reiss, Law Offices of Marlene S. Reiss, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Nancy W. Gregoire, Kirschbaum, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
[Lower court order in Case No. CONO12-009922 published at 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. D1239b.]OPINION
(PER CURIAM.) North Broward Health & Rehab, Inc. (“North Broward”) appeals final judgments in favor of State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”). Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record and the applicable law, we dispense with oral argument, and find that the final judgments should be reversed as set forth below.
In the proceedings below, North Broward sued State Farm for breach of contract for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits. State Farm filed motions for final summary judgment pursuant to section 627.736(5)(b)1.c., Florida Statutes. In support thereof, State Farm relied on the deposition of Dr. Frank DiBlase (“Dr. DiBlase”). In opposition, North Broward filed cross motions for summary judgment and relied on the affidavit of Ms. Antoinette Surin (“Ms. Surin”). The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of State Farm, relying on Chiropractic One, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 92 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D1565a].
On appeal, North Broward asserts that the trial court erred in granting final summary judgment in favor of State Farm because State Farm failed to satisfy its burden on summary judgment. Specifically, North Broward asserts that issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. North Broward further asserts that the trial court’s reliance on Chiropractic One, Inc. was misplaced. See Id. This Court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Lime Bay Condominium, Inc., 187 So. 3d 932, 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) [41 Fla. L. Weekly D730a].
This Court finds that the trial court erred in granting final summary judgment in favor of State Farm because issues of material fact preclude summary judgment, and the trial court’s reliance on Chiropractic One, Inc. was misplaced. Specifically, Dr. DiBlase’s deposition testimony does not eliminate an issue of fact as to whether North Broward knowingly submitted false or misleading statements. Moreover, Ms. Surin’s testimony supports North Broward’s position that it did not submit its bills to State Farm with the knowledge that its bills contained the incorrect treating physician’s name. Therefore, a material issue of fact exists.
Accordingly, the final judgments in favor of State Farm are hereby REVERSED, and these cases are REMANDED to the county court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. North Broward’s Motions for Appellate Attorney’s Fees are hereby GRANTED contingent upon North Broward prevailing with a final judgment. State Farm’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is hereby DENIED. (MURPHY, PERLMAN and LEVENSON, JJ., concur.)
