Case Search

Please select a category.

PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL BUILDING GROUP, INC. a/a/o Niurka Zamora, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant.

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 33a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2601ZAMOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Declaratory judgments — Court has jurisdiction to consider count in which provider seeks a declaration regarding whether policy at issue is clear and unambiguous and to insurer’s chosen methodology of reimbursement

PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL BUILDING GROUP, INC. a/a/o Niurka Zamora, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. General Jurisdiction Division. Case No. 14-1868-SP-25-1. February 27, 2018. Linda Diaz, Judge. Counsel: Walter A. Arguelles, Arguelles Legal, P.L., Miami, for Plaintiff.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONTO DISMISS COUNT III OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTFOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court on February 26, 2018, upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, 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:

Count III of Plaintiff’s complaint seeks declaratory relief pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes. Count III 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.

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 Count for breach of contract. Moreover, the Defendant alleges, that Plaintiff is seeking an advisory opinion and that the Declaratory Count impermissibly incorporates the allegations from its breach of contract Count, including seeking the same relief.

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.

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 Count III of Plaintiff’s complaint for Declaratory Relief is hereby DENIED.

Defendant shall respond to Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint within 30 days of this Order. The Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the relief sought under paragraphs G & H of its Count for Declaratory Relief.

Skip to content