27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 90a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2613DARDInsurance — Coverage — Conditions precedent — Compulsory medical examination — Where insurer repudiated insurance policy by suspending insured’s benefits, insured has no duty to attend CME
JOHN DARDANO, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Respondent. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No.17-CC-029655. March 1, 2019. Daryl M. Manning, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Patrick Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff.
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER having come before the court on April 9, 2018 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court having reviewed the file, considered the motion, the arguments presented by counsel, applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, finds,
1. On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed this Declaratory action seeking a declaration that the Plaintiff was not required to attend a chiropractic CME noticed by Defendant for August 1, 2017.
2. It is undisputed by the parties that Defendant previously suspended Plaintiff’s chiropractic benefits on August 31, 2014.
3. It is undisputed by the parties that the Defendant noticed the Plaintiff for a compulsory medical examination (CME) on July 25, 2017 and then re-scheduled the CME for August 1, 2017.
4. Defendant’s August 31, 2014 suspension of benefits constituted a repudiation of the insurance contract between Defendant and Plaintiff as of August 31, 2014. Peachtree v. Walden, 759 So.2d 7 ((Fla. 5th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D555d]. As such, Plaintiff’s duties under the insurance policy were discharged as of August 31, 2014. Therefore, Plaintiff had no duty under the insurance policy to attend Defendant’s chiropractic CME scheduled for August 1, 2017. South Miami Health Center (a/a/o Lazaro Alcarraga) v. United Automobile Ins. Co., 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 826a, (Fla. 11th Jud., Miami-Dade Cty. Ct., May 31, 2006, Judge Andrew S. Hague); United Automobile Ins. Co. v. Cicero Ortho-Med Center. Inc.
5. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY GRANTED.
6. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY DENIED.
