27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 646b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2707PRADInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Demand letter defense is not appropriate for summary judgment where insurer raised invalid demand letter defense in initial answer, but failed to raise defense in second answer and filed notice of withdrawal of demand letter defense — Insurer’s motion for leave to amend affirmative defenses to include demand letter defense is denied without prejudice
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL BUILDING GROUP, INC. a/a/o Manuel Prado, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, General Jurisdiction Division. Case No. 2014-011280-SP-25 (01). August 30, 2019. Elijah A. Levitt, Judge. Counsel: Walter A. Arguelles, Arguelles Legal, P.L., Miami, for Plaintiff. ROIG Lawyers, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER, having come before the court for hearing on August 28, 2019, on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to comply with a condition precedent to filing suit by failing to provide notice to the Defendant via a Pre-Suit Demand Letter that adheres to the requirements of Florida Statute Section 627.736(10), and the Court having reviewed the Defendant’s motion, read the relevant legal authority, heard argument from counsel of each party, and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, finds as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This matter originates from an automobile accident involving Manuel Prado (hereinafter referred as the “Claimant”) which allegedly occurred on or about November 29, 2009. As a result of the alleged injuries sustained in the automobile accident, the Claimant was treated at Plaintiff’s facility. The Plaintiff submitted bills for services rendered to the Claimant to the Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff submitted a demand letter to the Defendant. The Defendant responded to the demand letter and indicated that no further payment will be forthcoming as it has paid pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy at issue. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit against the Defendant.
On May 23, 2019, the Defendant filed the instant Motion for Final Summary Judgment. In its Motion, the Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff failed to comply with Florida Statute 6273.736(10). Specifically, the Defendant’s position is that Plaintiff’s demand letter fails to account for payments made by the Defendant and, therefore, Plaintiff failed to comply with Florida Statute 627.736(10).
In response, the Plaintiff argues that Defendant may not proceed on its Motion for Final Summary Judgment on the premise that parties are precluded from recovery on unpled claims.
ANALYSIS
Florida law is clear that a party is bound by the issues as framed by the pleadings. The seminal case on this point is Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris, P.A. v. Bomar Instrument Corp., 537 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1989). In Arky, Freed, the Supreme Court held that parties are barred from injecting new claims or theories into an action, including in cases where the new claim or theory was devised to evade summary judgment disposition. As stated by the Court, “litigants at the outset of a suit must be compelled to state their pleadings with sufficient particularity for a defense to be prepared. Our growing, complex society and diminishing resources mandate the requirement that litigants present all claims to the extent possible, at one time, and one time only.” Id. at 563; see also Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Mitzel, 83 So. 3d 865, 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D183a] (holding that when a party pleads one claim but tries to prove another, it is error for a trial court to allow the party to argue the unpled issue); A-Plus Med. & Rehab Ctr. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 186a (Miami-Dade Cty. Ct. March 19, 2019) (“The Supreme Court has barred the injection of new claims or theories into an action . . . where the new claim or theory was devised to evade summary judgment disposition.”).
Although the Defendant, in its initial October 10, 2014 Answer, raised an affirmative defense of an alleged invalidity of Plaintiff’s Pre-Suit Demand Letter, the Defendant failed to do so in its Second Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed on March 7, 2016. The Defendant also made clear that it was abandoning any defense pertaining to Plaintiff’s Pre-Suit Demand Letter through its August 17, 2016, Notice of Withdrawal of its Demand Letter Affirmative Defense. Therefore, the Demand Letter issue is not appropriate for summary judgment in this case. See Arky, Freed, 537 So. 2d at 563.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that as a matter of law, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the issue of invalid demand letter is hereby DENIED. Additionally, Defendant’s ore tenus Motion for Leave to Amend Affirmative Defenses to include a demand letter affirmative defense is hereby DENIED without prejudice.
