27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 293b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2703QUINInsurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Motion for enlargement of time to respond to insurer’s proposal for settlement beyond 30-day period provided in rule is denied
NEW HORIZONS WELLNESS CENTERS, LLC, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, a/a/o Shieka M Quinones, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2018-SC-018974-O (72), Civil Division. January 3, 2019. Faye L. Allen, Judge. Counsel: Jason B. Giller, Miami, for Plaintiff. Belinda T. Rivera and Robert M. Lyerly, Progressive PIP House Counsel, Maitland, for Defendant.ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSETO DEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on December 3, 2018 for hearing on PLAINTIFF, NEW HORIZONS WELLNESS CENTERS, LLC, A FLORIDA CORPORATION’s, (“Plaintiff’), MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’, PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY’s, (“Defendant”), PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT. The Court, having considered the motions, the record, and the arguments of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises, finds as follows:
Facts
1. On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendant. Plaintiff served its initial discovery requests to Plaintiff with the Complaint.
2. Defendant was served with Plaintiff’s Complaint on August 2, 2018.
3. The Pretrial Conference took place on August 31, 2018.
4. On September 20, 2018, Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
5. On September 24, 2018, Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment.
6. On September 28, 2018, Defendant filed discovery responses to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
7. Plaintiff filed motions to overrule objections and compel better responses to discovery on October 18, 2018.
8. Counsel for Defendant and Plaintiff telephone conferences on October 18, 2018 and November 6, 2018 to discuss Plaintiff’s inquiries regarding how the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction, (“MPPR”), was applied to Plaintiff’s bills.
9. On November 1, 2018, Defendant filed it Proposal for Settlement.
10. On November 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement.
11. On November 16, 2018, Plaintiff requested the deposition of Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative.
Issue
12. The issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff has shown good cause for the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Argument
13. Plaintiff cited to the case of Koppel v. Ochoa, 243 So.3d 886 (Fla. 2018) [43 Fla. L. Weekly S225a] in support of its motion arguing that this Court has discretion to enlarge the period to respond to Defendant’s Proposal of Settlement if Plaintiff shows cause to support the enlargement of time. Id. 892
14. As cause, Plaintiff argues that, in order to determine whether to accept Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement, it would need the deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representative.
15. According to Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot decipher the calculations utilized by Defendant to determine the amount to be paid for CPT codes subject to MPPR without the deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representative.
16. Without the deposition, Plaintiff argues, it cannot determine whether the amount in the Proposal for Settlement is acceptable and Plaintiff’s Counsel cannot advise its client as to whether accept or reject the Proposal for Settlement.
17. Plaintiff also argued that there were pending motions to compel better responses and to overrule objections which Plaintiff intended for the court to have heard in the future.
Defendant’s Argument
18. Defendant agrees that this Court has discretion to enlarge the period to respond to the proposal for settlement acknowledging the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in Koppel.
19. However, Defendant argues that merely wanting to conduct the deposition of the corporate representative to determine the basis for payment was not sufficient cause for the Court its discretion.
20. Defendant relied on the ruling of the County Court of the 6th Judicial Circuit in Wall Healthcare, Inc. (Patient: Helene Lapp) v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 434a, where the court found that “a Plaintiff must perform its due diligence prior to bringing a suit and must be aware of the issues unto which it has brought suit. As such, it is in an equal position as a defendant to decide whether to accept or reject a settlement within the 30 days outlined in the rule and statute.”
21. Defendant presented to the Court the ruling the County Court of the 3rd Judicial Circuit in Lake Shore HMA, LLC d/b/a Shands Lake Shore Regional Medical Center, (Patient: Michael R. Reed) v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 340a, where the Court held as follows:
[P]laintiff brought suit, and the facts in the Complaint have not been amended since the original filing. There is not good reason or good cause given to circumvent the strict reading of the statute and force State Farm to further litigate the lawsuit when it can be extinguished now. To allow further discovery in this case will only increase costs and attorney’s fees for the Defendant, with no recourse of the punitive arm of Rule 1.442 and Fla. State. Sec. 768.19. Id.
22. The final case provided by Defendant was a ruling from the County Court in the 20th Judicial Circuit, Naples Medical & Rehab, LLC a/a/o Jerry Ortiz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 66a where the court held that “the purpose of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 is to move the litigation process forward, and to allow either side to approach the question of settlement at the point deemed appropriate. Extending the legally defined deadline for the response to a Proposal for Settlement would weaken the intent of that rule.”
23. Defendant further argues that discovery had been concluded and the issue before the court regarding the application of MPPR is a purely legal issue which would not be remedied by the deposition of the corporate representative.
Analysis
24. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 establishes that a proposal for settlement can be filed by Defendant no later than the 91st day after suit is filed. The Rule prescribes that Plaintiff has 30 days from the filing of the Proposal for Settlement to accept the proposal or the same would be deemed rejected.
25. Defendant filed its proposal for settlement on November 1, 2018, in accordance with the rule.
26. This Court has discretion to enlarge the period of time per the ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida in Koppel v. Ochoa. Upon that authority, this Court heard the arguments of the parties and the case law presented as to whether Plaintiff established cause for the enlargement of time requested to be granted.
27. The Court cites and adopts the ruling of the Court in County Court of the 6th Judicial Circuit in Wall Healthcare, Inc. (Patient: Helene Lapp) v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 434a. “Plaintiff must perform its due diligence prior to bringing a suit and must be aware of the issues unto which it has brought suit. As such, it is in an equal position as a defendant to decide whether to accept or reject a settlement within the 30 days outlined in the rule and statute.” Id.
28. The Court finds that the issues raised by Plaintiff’s Counsel as cause, the need for a deposition of the Defendant’s Corporate Representative in order to valuate the case and understand the calculations regarding MPPR, is not sufficient for the court to enlarge the period prescribed by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442,
29. Plaintiff received discovery responses from Defendant on September 28, 2018 and has had discovery in its possession for three months during which, as admitted by the parties, two telephone conferences have taken place where the attorneys have discussed the manner in which payments were made by Defendant. The parties are simply in disagreement as to the calculations and the deposition of the corporate representative would not change those circumstances.
30. The Court further finds that further litigation would unnecessarily continue to increase fees and costs and the intent of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 is to move forward litigation regardless of whether discovery has been completed.CONCLUSION
This Court finds that Plaintiff failed to show cause to support its request for this Court to exercise its authority to enlarge the period to respond to Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement.
It is therefore Ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement is DENIED.
