27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 179a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2702MCHEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Pending discovery is not cause to allow extension of time for medical provider to respond to proposal for settlement
THORPE CHIROPRACTIC AND REHAB CENTER a/a/o Veronica McHenry, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County. Case No. 16-003411-SC (NORTH). March 18, 2019. John Carassas, Judge. Counsel: T. Roger White, Jr., and Gregory Rock, White, Twombly, P.A., Miami Shores, for Plaintiff. Lisa M. Lewis, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKEAND/OR EXTEND THE COMMENCEMENTDATE OF DEFENDANT’SPROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and/or Extend the Commencement Date of Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the Premises, it is hereupon:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiff filed this action on March 22, 2016 seeking allegedly overdue PIP benefits. Defendant served its Proposal for Settlement pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.442 and Florida Statute § 768.79 on August 24, 2018. Plaintiff filed its Motion to Strike and/or Extend the Commencement Date of Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement on August 27, 2018 alleging that the deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representative was needed in order to Plaintiff to make a decision whether or not to accept the proposal for Settlement.
Plaintiff cited to Koppel v. Ochoa, 243 So.3d 996 (Fla. 2018) [43 Fla. L. Weekly S225a] arguing that the court had discretion to enlarge the time to respond to the proposal for settlement because its Motion was filed before the expiration of the time period and cause has been shown. Defendant cited to Wall Healthcare, Inc. v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 434a (Fla. Pinellas Cty. Ct., 2016) arguing that the language of F.R.C.P. 1.442 and Florida Statute § 768.79 should be strictly construed and that the extension of time should be denied, as the Plaintiff must perform its due diligence prior to bringing a lawsuit and must be aware of the issues unto which it has brought suit. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff is in an equal position as Defendant to decide whether to accept or reject a proposal for settlement within 30 days allowed for under F.R.C.P. 1.442 and Florida Statute § 768.79.
The Court finds that F.R.C.P. 1.442 and Florida Statute § 768.79 does not require discovery to be complete at the time of the serving of a proposal for settlement and that is not cause to allow an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and/or Extend the Commencement Date of Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement is hereby DENIED.
