25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 103a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2501ROBIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory actions — Motion to dismiss complaint seeking declaration as to whether insurer can combine both reasonable amount method of reimbursement and statutory fee schedule method of reimbursement into hybrid method of reimbursement is denied — Existence of another remedy at law through action for breach of contract does not preclude judgment for declaratory relief
PRESGAR IMAGING OF CMI NORTH, a/a/o Christine Robinson, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2016-6074 SP 23. March 1, 2017. Linda Diaz, Judge. Counsel: Howard W. Myones and Travis Greene, Law Offices of Anidjar & Levine, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Alexandra Taboada and Siona Horowitz, Nosich & Ganz, Coral Gables, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TODISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTFOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court on February 24, 2017, upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief, and the Court having reviewed the complaint, the motion, the Court file, and all relevant legal authorities, and otherwise having been fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Plaintiff’s complaint seeks declaratory relief pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes. Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint requests a declaratory judgment. Plaintiff contends that State Farm’s insurance policy fails to clearly and unambiguously notify its insureds of the method in which it will reimburse “medical benefits” as its insurance policy contains numerous different payment methodologies and possibilities for calculating PIP benefits. Plaintiff contends that an insurer is allowed to choose between two different payment calculation methodology options and the insurer must make a choice between those two options. Specifically, whether State Farm can combine the two methods, or pick and choose among the terms and conditions of both in order to create a new hybrid method.
The Defendant alleges that a Declaratory Judgment is not the proper vehicle for the Plaintiff, that Plaintiff’s Declaratory Action is better addressed by way of an action for breach of contract, that Plaintiff is seeking an advisory opinion and that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.
Pursuant to Florida Statute Section 86.011, a court may render a declaratory judgment on the existence, or non-existence of any immunity, power, privilege or right. The court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint more than adequately sets out a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts Plaintiff is alleging in its complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint demonstrates from the four corners of the complaint that there is a bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration sought.
Defendant also alleges that the Plaintiff is merely seeking an advisory opinion. This Court finds that the Plaintiff is not seeking advice from the court on how to proceed with its case. In this instant case Plaintiff files its declaratory action in order to determine whether State Farm’s insurance policy is unambiguous and clear as to its chosen methodology of payment under the policy.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s declaratory action is better addressed by way of an action for breach of contract. This Court finds that the Plaintiff has the right to choose its legal strategy and the right to pursue its chosen legal path. The mere existence of another remedy at law does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief. Maciejewski vs. Holland, 441 So.2d 703 (1983).
When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and the court is only limited to the facts alleged within the four corners of the Complaint. Minor v. Brunetti, 43 So.3d 178, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2013a]; Swerdlin v. Florida Municipal Insurance Trust, 162 So.3d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D2164c].
As such, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief is DENIED. Defendant shall respond to the Plaintiff’s Complaint within 15 days of this Order.
