25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 86b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2501MOREInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Motion to compel deposition of pre-litigation adjuster who made determination to reduce or deny medical provider’s bills, rather than claims representative or litigation adjuster offered for deposition by insurer, is granted
ALVAREZ THERAPEUTIC CENTER INC., a/a/o Yumelkys Moreira, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, General Jurisdiction Division. Case No. 2016-08434-SP-25 (01). March 23, 2017. Jason E. Dimitris, Judge. Counsel: Walter A. Arguelles, Arguelles Legal, P.L., Miami, for Plaintiff. Tori de Leonardo, Jonathan S. Brooks, P.A., Deerfield Beach, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPELDEPOSITION DATES OF DEFENDANT’SPRE-LITIGATION ADJUSTER AND FORATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Dates of Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The Court having reviewed the motion and entire Court file, heard arguments from counsel for each party, and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, finds as follows:
The case arose out of a claim for failure to pay Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits in connection with an automobile accident in which Yumelkys Moreira sustained injuries.
Pursuant to Florida Statute §627.736, Alvarez Therapeutic Center Inc. submitted its bills to Defendant for payment of medical services rendered and/or diagnostic testing to Yumelkys Moreira. As a result of Defendant’s refusal to tender payment at Alvarez Therapeutic Center Inc’s reasonable charge, Alvarez Therapeutic Center Inc. initiated suit. Soon thereafter, Plaintiff sought the deposition of Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster. Specifically, Defendant was contacted in writing requesting deposition dates for the Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster. It is Defendant’s position that Plaintiff should depose the Corporate Representative and/or Litigation Adjuster instead of the Pre-Litigation Adjuster. Defendant suggests that the information that Plaintiff seeks may be within the knowledge of the Corporate Representative and/or Litigation Adjuster. Defendant further alleges that the pre-litigation adjuster is not likely to recall any claim specific information. . .but would be required to refer to the file, of which the Corporate Representative and/or Litigation Adjuster has the most knowledge.
This Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s notion as the Claims Representative was not the individual who handled the subject claim and became involved in the handling of the claim only after suit was filed by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is within its right to depose the Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster as said individual made the determination as to why Plaintiff’s bills were denied or reduced.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster is hereby GRANTED.
2. The parties shall mutually coordinate the deposition of Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster within thirty (30) days of this Order.
3. Said deposition shall take place within one hundred twenty (120) days of this Order.
