27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 67a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2701PJARInsurance — Personal injury protection — Deductible — Conflicting evidence as to whether insured elected deductible precludes entry of summary judgment on this issue
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, INC., d/b/a EMERGENCY RESOURCES GROUP, a/a/o Pricilla Jarvis, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2016 21447 CONS, Division 73 (MILLER). March 7, 2019. A. Christian Miller, Judge. Counsel: K. Doug Walker, Bradford Cederberg, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Catherine V. Arpen, Dutton Law Group, Jacksonville, for Defendant.
CORRECTED1ORDER DENYINGSUMMARY DISPOSITION REGARDINGELECTION OF DEDUCTIBLE
This matter is before the court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Proper Application2 of Plaintiff’s Bills to the Deductible with Memorandum of Law (“Defendant’s Motion”) and Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). The court has reviewed the motions, conducted a hearing on both on January 23, 2019, and considered the arguments of the parties. Based upon the foregoing, the court finds as follows:
1. The issue before the court is whether or not a deductible was actually elected by the applicant/policyholder in this case.
2. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the court does not see any language in Florida Statute § 627.739 that requires an insurance company to make an applicant/policyholder fill out a specific deductible election form.
3. Regarding this specific sub-issue, all that the above statute appears to require Defendant to do is offer a deductible option, and if one is elected, reduce the premium accordingly. The statute further dictates one acceptable option of how the offer of a deductible can be made (font, language, etc.).
4. As noted at the hearing, from the court’s view there is conflicting evidence in this case about whether or not the applicant/policyholder actually elected a deductible.
5. Although the declarations page indicates a deductible was elected, another portion of the policy documents does not reflect a corresponding premium reduction.
6. Furthermore, the internal form that Defendant uses to offer the deductible option to its applicants/policyholders was unsigned.
7. Based upon this conflicting evidence, the court finds there is a triable issue regarding whether or not the applicant/policyholder actually elected a deductible in this case.
Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
A. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Proper Application3 of Plaintiff’s Bills to the Deductible with Memorandum of Law is DENIED.
B. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment is DENIED.
__________________
1Corrected only to reflect accurate case style.
2The body of Defendant’s Motion addressed the deductible election issue, as well as the deductible application issue.
3See footnote 1 above. This Order applies to the deductible election issue only. The court also contemporaneously issued a separate order addressing the deductible application issue. [27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 66b]
