Case Search

Please select a category.

ORTHOPEDIC CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, P.A. a/a/o Barbara Fernandez, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 462a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2406FERNInsurance — Personal injury protection — Arbitration — Where parties did not request trial de novo within deadline for such request, trial court must enter judgment in accordance with arbitrator’s decision despite insurer’s claim that its failure to timely request trial de novo was result of mistake or inadvertence

ORTHOPEDIC CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, P.A. a/a/o Barbara Fernandez, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE 15-005912 (55). June 17, 2016. Daniel J. Kanner, Judge. Counsel: Michael Fischetti, Shuster & Saben, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Rashad El-Amin, Office of the General Counsel, Miami, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FORUNSEALING OF ARBITRATION DECISIONAND AWARD OF FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER having come before the Court for hearing on April 25, 2016, on Plaintiff’s Motion for Unsealing of Arbitration Decision and Award of Final Judgment, and the Court having reviewed the Court file, including all record evidence presented, the parties’ motions and supporting documents, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court Finds as follows:

This instant case is for unpaid medical bills that were due and owing pursuant to Florida Statute 627.736, known as the PIP statute. A statutory demand letter was submitted by the Plaintiff pursuant to Florida Statute 627.736(10). When the Defendant in this case failed to properly pay the past amount due and owing a lawsuit was filed for the unpaid PIP benefits that were due and owing for date of service May 17, 2011.

This case was submitted to mandatory arbitration. The arbitration was attended by both Parties on November 19, 2015. The arbitrator, Michael G. Ahearn, Esq., served his decision by U.S. Mail on December 2, 2015 in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendant received the decision on December 3, 2015.

Under Rule 1.820(h) Fla. R. Civ. P., a motion for trial do novo must be “made” within twenty (20) days of “service” of the arbitrator’s decision. Under Florida law, “a party has the right to move for a trial within twenty days after the service of the arbitrator’s decision. If no motion for trial is timely served, the trial court must enforce the decision of the arbitrator and has no discretion otherwise” (emphasis added). Bacon Family Partners, L.P. v. Apollo Condominium Ass’n852 So.2d 882, 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly Dl795a]. See also Johnson v. Levine, 736 So.2d 1235, 1238 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D1456a]; Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc., 600 So.2d 511, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The Court lacks discretion to deny entry of a judgment in accordance with the arbitrator’s decision when the parties fail to timely request a trial de novo or otherwise fail to dispose of the case of record within the de novo deadline. In this case the Defendant did not file their motion until February 10, 2016. There is no question that the Defendant filed to file their motion for trial de novo timely.

The Plaintiff filed its motion for Unsealing of the Arbitration Decision and Award of Final Judgment on February 4, 2016. Defendant moved the Honorable Court, by way of Motion and Argument at the April 25, 2016 hearing to deny the Plaintiff’s Motion. Defendant argued that their failure to timely file a trial de novo was as a result of mistake and inadvertence. The court after taking into consideration the case law and affidavit produced by the Defendant disagreed with the Defendant’s position and granted the Plaintiff’s Motion.

AS a result, it is hereby ADJUDGED THAT:

The Plaintiff shall recover from the Defendant, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, the sum of $1,672.15 (exclusive of prejudgment interest), which sum shall hereafter bear interest at the statutory rate from the date of the signing of this order. The Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs, which the Court reserves jurisdiction to determine.

Skip to content