25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 676a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2507ANIDInsurance — Discovery — Admissions — Failure to comply — Response to request for admissions as to genuineness of insurer’s explanations of review that admits genuineness to extent that EOR is exact copy of EOR produced by insurer in response to request for production related to subject accident, claimant, and treatment, not altered by medical provider in any way, and not claimed to be privileged was insufficient — If there are extraneous materials on face of otherwise genuine correspondence, insurer shall specify that materials are not part of original correspondence but that correspondence is otherwise genuine
ORTHO REHAB OF HALLANDALE BCH, LLC, (a/a/o Nidetz, Andrew), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 11-26257 COCE 51. September 6, 2017. Kathleen McCarthy, Judge. Counsel: Robert B. Goldman, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TODETERMINE INSUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANT’SRESPONSE TO REQUEST NOS. 1 AND 3 OFPLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on August 17, 2017 upon Plaintiff’s Motion for the entry of an Order, determining the responses of the Defendant to request nos. 1 and 3 of Plaintiff’s Second Request for Admissions to be insufficient and compelling Defendant to provide better answers, and the Court having considered the motion, having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereupon
ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff Ortho Rehab of Hallandale Bch, LLC served its Second Request for Admissions to Defendant on December 1, 2016, to which State Farm served its response on January 20, 2017.
2. On May 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Determine Insufficiency of Defendant’s Response to Request Nos. 1-3 of Plaintiff’s Second Request for Admissions. On May 25, 2017, the parties coordinated a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Insufficiency of Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions Regarding the Genuineness of State Farm Explanations of Review and for an Award of Sanctions, scheduling the hearing for August 17, 2017 at 2:15 p.m.
3. On August 17, 2017 at 12:15 p.m., two hours prior to the scheduled hearing, State Farm filed a new Response to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Admissions, in which State Farm responded to request nos. 1 and 3 as follows:
To the extent that the attached document is an exact copy of correspondence that has been produced to Plaintiff by Defendant in response to a Request for Production or otherwise in this case, related to the subject motor vehicle accident and treatment, not altered by the Plaintiff in any way, and not claimed as Privileged, Admit. Otherwise, Denies.
4. State Farm’s new Response is insufficient, as it does not comply with Rule 1.370(a), Fla. R.Civ.P. Pursuant to that rule, a party is entitled to serve upon any party a written request for the admission of the truth of any matters within the scope of rule 1.280(b), including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.
5. In this case, State Farm may not respond in a generic fashion that it admits the genuineness of a correspondence to the extent that the correspondence is an exact copy of correspondence that has been produced to Plaintiff by Defendant in response to a Request for Production or otherwise in this case, related to the subject motor vehicle accident and treatment, not altered by the Plaintiff in any way, and not claimed as Privileged.
6. As provided in Rule 1.370(a), when good faith requires that State Farm qualify an answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested as to any specific document, State Farm shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. More particularly, to the extent that there are handwritten notes, notations or other extraneous material on the face of a correspondence that otherwise appears to be genuine, State Farm shall specify that the handwritten notes, notations or other extraneous material are not part of the original State Farm correspondence, but that the correspondence is otherwise a genuine copy.
7. Defendant shall have 30 days to provide better responses to request nos. 1 and 3 of Plaintiff’s Second Request for Admissions.
