25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 906a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2510SIMMInsurance — Arbitration — Confirmation of award — Where parties did not request trial de novo within deadline for such request, trial court must enter judgment in accordance with arbitrator’s decision
WEST KENDALL REHAB CENTER, INC., a/a/o Shawn Simmons, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Civil Division. Case No. 15-007400 COCE 54. December 19, 2017. Florence T. Barner, Judge. Counsel: Majid Vossoughi, Majid Vossoughi, P.A., Miami, for Plaintiff. Eric Fresco, Wicker Smith, et al., Coral Gables, for Defendant.
FINAL JUDGMENT ON ARBITRATOR’SDECISION IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on December 19, 2017 on Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal Arbitration Decision, Motion to Enforce Arbitration Award, and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. The issue presented is whether confirmation of an arbitration award is required by this Court where neither party filed a timely request for trial de novo from said award.
The parties were represented by counsel at the hearing who presented arguments to this Court. Eric Fresco, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and Majid Vossoughi, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, West Kendall Rehab Center, Inc.
The Court having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal Arbitration Decision, Motion to Enforce Arbitration Award, and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, the relevant legal authorities, and having heard argument from counsel and being otherwise sufficiently advised in the premises, hereby makes the following factual findings and conclusions of law, and enters this Final Judgment on Arbitrator’s Decision in Favor of Plaintiff.
BACKGROUND& FACTUAL FINDINGS
On April 7, 2015 Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for unpaid PIP benefits.
On July 14, 2017 the Court entered its Order Referring Personal Injury Protection case to mandatory arbitration.
On November 17, 2017 the Arbitrator served her decision on the respective parties and on the same day filed with this Court a Notice of Filing Under Seal of Arbitration Decision.
On December 13, 2017 Plaintiff filed its Motion to Unseal Arbitration Decision, Motion to Enforce Arbitration Award, and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. This motion alleges that a timely trial de novo has not been filed from the Arbitration Decision served in this matter and requests the Court to unseal the decision and to enter an appropriate Order and Final Judgment in accord with the decision.
On December 13, 2017 the parties appeared before this Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Final Judgment. At that hearing the Court entered an Order continuing Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Final Judgment and requested that same be re-noticed to December 19, 2017 along with Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal Arbitration Decision, Motion to Enforce Arbitration Award, and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment.
On December 13, 2017 Plaintiff promptly re-noticed a hearing on its Motion for Summary Final Judgment as well as Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal Arbitration Decision, Motion to Enforce Arbitration Award, and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment for a hearing on December 19, 2017.
On December 13, 2017 and only after the foregoing, Defendant filed with this Court its Motion for Trial De Novo.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Fla. Stat. 44.103(5) provides in pertinent part:
An arbitration decision shall be final if a request for a trial de novo is not filed within the time provided by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court . . . If no request for trial de novo is made within the time provided, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge in the case who shall enter such orders and judgments as are required to carry out the terms of the decision, which orders shall be enforceable by the contempt powers of the court, and for which judgments execution shall issue on request of a party.
Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.820(h) provides that a motion for trial de novo must be “made” within 20 days of the “service” of the arbitrator’s decision. The rule provides in pertinent part;
If a motion for trial is not made within 20 days of service on the parties of the decision, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge, who shall enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes.
Under Florida law, “a party has the right to move for a trial within twenty days after service of the arbitrator’s decision. However, if no motion for trial is timely served, then the trial court must enforce the decision of the arbitrator and has no discretion to do otherwise.” Bacon Family Partners, L.P. v. Apollo Condominium Association, Inc., 852 So.2d 882, 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D1795a]; see also Johnson v. Levine, 736 So.2d 1235, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D1456a] (once a party fails to request a trial de novo by the express terms of section 44.103(5) the award becomes final and binding and the trial court has a mandatory duty to enforce a final award made by the arbitrator); Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc., 600 So.2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (trial court was required to enforce arbitration award and lacked jurisdiction to do otherwise where the parties failed to move for a trial de novo within twenty days of the arbitration award).
Defendant did not “file” its request for trial de novo until twenty-six (26) days after the Arbitrator served her Arbitration Decision on the respective parties. In fact, it was not until after Plaintiff motioned this Court and noticed for hearing its Motion to Unseal Arbitration Decision, Motion to Enforce Arbitration Award, and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment that Defendant served a request for trial de novo. Defendant failed to timely file its trial de novo and, accordingly, the Court is required to enter judgment in accordance with the Arbitration Decision and lacks jurisdiction to do otherwise.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal Arbitration Decision, Motion to Enforce Arbitration Award, and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment is hereby GRANTED. Based on this Court’s analysis set forth above, the Court has this day unsealed the Arbitration Decision in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED that Plaintiff, WEST KENDALL REHAB CENTER, INC., recover from Defendant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, the sum of $5,000.00 as principal and prejudgment interest in the sum of $1,016.36, for a total sum of $6,016.36 which shall bear interest at the rate of 5.35% per year, for which let execution issue. Counsel for Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs associated with this action and the Court reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of same
