25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 666a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2507PAULInsurance — 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 — No merit to argument that joint motion for stay submitted prior to deadline for requesting trial de novo should have been retroactively granted
CJ FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, LLC, a/a/o Nicodhia Paul, Plaintiff, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE 15-003155, Division 54. October 4, 2017. Florence Taylor Barner, Judge. Counsel: Michael Fischetti, Michael Fischetti, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Jacob Berger, Law Office of George L. Cimballa, III, Plantation, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FORUNSEALING OF ARBITRATION DECISIONAND AWARD OF FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER having come before the Court for hearing on September 19, 2017, 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 involves 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). After the Defendant in this case failed to properly pay the past amount due and owing the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for unpaid PIP benefits that were due and owing for dates of service July 16, 2013 through January 9, 2014.
This case was submitted to mandatory arbitration by this Honorable Court by way of an order dated May 4, 2017. The arbitration was attended by both parties on June 29, 2017. The Arbitrator, Honorable Fred Berman, served his Arbitration Decision by E-Service on July 11, 2017. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. The Arbitration Decision reflects that the arbitrator appropriately considered the parties’ arguments, as well as their proffered affidavits and other evidence. There is no question that both parties received the Arbitrators decision. The deadline for either party to have had filed a Trial De Novo was July 31, 2017.
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’n, 852 So.2d 882, 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D1795a]. 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 for trial de novo until August 10, 2017. There is no question that the Defendant failed 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 August 16, 2017. Defendant moved this Honorable Court, by way of motion and oral argument at the September 19, 2017 hearing, to deny the Plaintiff’s Motion. At hearing the Defendant raised the issue that a joint motion to stay was submitted prior to the Trial De Novo deadline, and therefore the motion to stay should have been retroactively granted, however the Court was not inclined to agree with the Defendant’s argument.
The Court, after taking into consideration the case law presented by the Plaintiff and argument by the Defendant, disagrees with the Defendant’s position and grants the Plaintiff’s Motion.
As a result, it is hereby ADJUDGED THAT: The Plaintiff shall recover from the Defendant, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, the sum of $2090.59 (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.
