27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 202a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2702CRUZInsurance — Personal injury protection — Where medical provider filed complaint seeking damages with maximum jurisdictional amount not to exceed $500, and insurer thereafter filed confession of judgment to maximum jurisdictional amount and stipulated to provider’s entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees, insurer made valid confession of judgment and court lacks jurisdiction to consider amended complaint seeking additional damages
CHIROCARE OF SUNRISE, LLC, a/a/o Diosky De La Cruz, Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s), v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s)/Respondent(s). County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. CONO17005436, Division 70. March 21, 2019, Nunc Pro Tunc April 13, 2018. John D. Fry, Judge. Counsel: Justin Weinstein, for Plaintiff. Christopher E. Marshall, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTINGORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKECONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONTO AMEND COMPLAINT, AND DEFENDANT’S MOTIONTO ENFORCE CONFESSION OF JUDGMENTAND FOR SANCTIONS
THIS CAUSE having come to be heard on April 13, 2018, for hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Confession of Judgment, Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Confession of Judgment, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised on the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:FACTS
Plaintiff, Chirocare of Sunrise, LLC (“Chirocare”) as the assignee of Diosky De La Cruz provided Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company (“GEICO”) with two presuit demand letters seeking personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits in the combined amount of $6,716.02, for combined dates of service of November 12, 2016 through March 21, 2017. On July 12, 2017 Chirocare filed its Complaint for Breach of Contract as to dates of service March 1, 2017 through March 21, 2017, with a maximum jurisdictional amount that does not exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Despite attempts to negotiate, including court ordered mediation the Parties did not agree to settle the matter. On March 15, 2018, GEICO filed a confession of judgment to the maximum jurisdictional amount plead in Chirocare’s initial Complaint, and stipulated to Chirocare’s entitlement of a reasonable attorney fee. On March 21, 2018, after GEICO filed its confession of judgment, Plaintiff sought to amend its Complaint to increase jurisdictional amount to $2,500.00-$5,000.00 and add additional dates of service of November 12, 2016 through February 28, 2017. Additionally, on April 9, 2018, Chirocare filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Confession alleging GEICO’s confession of judgment was made in bad faith because the confession was for the jurisdictional amount rather than the amount Chirocare claimed to be owed. GEICO filed its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Chirocare’s Motion and sought sanctions for Chirocare’s disclosure of mediation and settlement communications in its Motion to Strike.ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Chirocare’s argument that GEICO’s confession of judgment to a maximum jurisdictional amount is conduct of bad faith where GEICO had prior knowledge that a provider’s claim for PIP benefits is more than the maximum jurisdictional amount is not well taken. This Court is not aware of any case law that would support a ruling in Chirocare’s favor on the issue of striking GEICO’s confession of judgment where GEICO confessed to the entire jurisdictional amount claimed in Chirocare’s Complaint. The Florida PIP Statute is fraught with peril for both sides. GEICO provided case law in support of its argument that it is not bad faith to confess judgment in the amount set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint. In confessing to the maximum jurisdictional amount claimed in a provider’s complaint and where a concession to the provider’s entitlement to a reasonable attorney fee is made, the court is divested of jurisdiction. Where the defendant agreed to the entry of a judgment against it in the maximum amount, the issues between the parties as framed by the pleadings became moot because the trial court could not provide any further substantive relief. . . It would be error for the court to require the parties to proceed where the statute provided for recovery of attorney’s fees upon entry of judgment, the insured is not required to continue litigation where the insurer paid the claim. . . The confession check was tendered prior to the dismissal and a right to attorney’s fees vested. Therefore the court “lack[s] jurisdiction to take any other action than to enter judgment.
GEICO Casualty Company v. Barber, 147 So.3d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1727a] citing Safeco Insurance Co. v. Fridman, 117 So.3d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D1159c]; Wollard v. Lloyd’s and Companies of Lloyd’s, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1983) (“[T]he payment of the claim is, indeed, the functional equivalent of a confession of judgment or verdict in favor of the insured.”); Douglas Price, P.A., a/a/o Chery Dickenson v. MGA Ins. Co., Inc., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 976a (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. 2014) (denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and granting defendant’s motion to strike motion for leave for amend after confession of judgment in amount equal to or exceeding amount equal to or exceeding amount sought in plaintiff’s complaint, noting that “Defendant made a valid confession of judgment by paying the maximum jurisdictional amount claimed by plaintiff”; “A plaintiff may choose to voluntarily reduce the amount of its claim to obtain a lower filing fee, but in doing so also accepts the burden with that benefit where a confession of judgment for the reduced amount is a valid confession of judgment.”); Douglas Price, P.A., a/a/o Nehemie Chery v. State Farm, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1094b (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. 2015) (striking document filed by plaintiff after confession of judgment in the full amount plead in complaint because “the court is divested of jurisdiction with the filing of a Notice of Confession of Judgment”).
Further, this Court has previously ruled numerous times on the issue and has found a motion to amend as moot given a confession of judgment to the jurisdictional amount in controversy and subsequently enforced an insurer’s confession of judgment. Lake Worth Chiropractic Center, Inc., a/a/o Cruz McKnight v. Progressive American Insurance Company, CONO 15-008698 (70),
Upon GEICO’s Confession of Judgment in the maximum jurisdictional amount set forth by the Chirocare in its initial Complaint and conceded to Chirocare’s entitlement to a reasonable attorney fee, the court is divested of further jurisdiction on this matter.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Enforce its Confession of Judgment is GRANTED;
2. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Confession of Judgment is DENIED; and
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend its Complaint is DENIED as moot in light of this ruling.
