26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 88a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2602ADAMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Statutory fee schedules — Policy language provided legally sufficient notice regarding insurer’s decision to use statutory reimbursement limitations
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant-Defendant, v. FLORIDA WELLNESS & REHABILITATION CENTER OF LITTLE HAVANA, LLC, a/a/o Angelo E. Adams, Rene A. Perez, and Juan Tones, Appellee-Plaintiff. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case Nos. 14-373 AP, 14-374 AP, 14-375 AP. L.T. Case Nos. 12-824 CC 25, 13-13175 CC 25, & 13-13283 CC 25. March 23, 2018. On appeal from a judgment rendered by the Miami-Dade County Court, Hon. Gloria Gonzalez-Meyer. Counsel: Douglas Brehm and Suzanne Youmans Labrit, Shutts & Bowen, LLP, and Peter J. Valeta, Cozen O’ Conner, for Appellant-Defendant. Marlene S. Reiss, Marlene S. Reiss, P.A., for Appellee-Plaintiff.
(Before SCHLESINGER, HIRSCH, & V. DIAZ, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) In this consolidated appeal,1 Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Insurer”) requests that we determine whether a personal injury protection provision in its automotive insurance policy sufficiently notifies insured individuals that the Insurer may use the reimbursement limitations authorized by section 627.736(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2008).
After both parties briefed this issue for appellate review, the Florida Supreme Court decided Allstate Insurance Company v. Orthopedic Specialists, 212 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 2017) [42 Fla. L. Weekly S38a]. Pursuant to Orthopedic Specialists, Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center of Little Havana, a/a/o Angelo Adams (“Provider”), confessed error. When a party confesses error on appeal, the appellate court may reverse the order “without expressing any opinion as to the extent of the error.” Indian Harbor Estates, Inc. v. Wagner, 148 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
At the trial level, the Litigants stipulated the dispositive issue for the trial court’s summary judgment review (R. at 26). In accord with the stipulation, the trial court considered the following policy language:
Any amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations authorized by Fla. Stat. § 627.736, or any other provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, as enacted, amended or otherwise continued in the law including, but not limited to, all fee schedules.
Id. at 496. The lower court concluded that the policy did not elect “the reimbursement limitations under” section 627.736(5)(a)2. Id. The trial court granted the Provider’s summary judgment motion and denied the Insurer’s summary judgment motion. Id. at 497. Orthopedic Specialists clarifies the law regarding the policy language analyzed by the trial court. Reviewing the same policy language at issue here, 212 So. 3d at 975, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the “policy provides legally sufficient notice” regarding the “election to use the permissive Medicare fee schedules identified” in section 627.736(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2009). Id. at 974 & 977. Since the Provider correctly confesses error pursuant to Orthopedic Specialists, we vacate the final judgment and the summary judgment.
The Provider requests section 627.428(1) appellate attorney’s fees. Because the Provider does not prevail on appeal, section 627.428(1) mandates that we deny the Provider’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees.
REVERSED & REMANDED; APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S FEES DENIED.
__________________
1We discuss the facts as presented in Case No. 14-373 AP.
