28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 421a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2805BEAUInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Denial of coverage based on alleged failure to appear at multiple examinations under oath — Insurer was in breach of contract because insurer violated PIP statute by failing to pay or deny claim within 30 days and did not invoke the additional time limitation under section 627.736(4)(i)
IRMA BEAUFILS, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. JEAN BEAUFILS, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. WILLIAM CHARLES, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 20-CC-015833. July 28, 2020. Frances M. Perrone, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Patrick Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTIONFOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER having come before the court on July 23, 2020 on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment. The court having listened to argument by counsel, having reviewed the Motion, file, applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, finds,
1. These are three (3) consolidated Declaratory actions under Florida Statutes Chapter 86 seeking a coverage declaration based upon Defendant’s denial of PIP coverage based upon an alleged failure to appear at multiple EUO’s by the respective
2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeks entry of summary judgment arguing that Defendant violated the PIP statute by failing to pay or deny the claim within 30 days and did not invoke the additional time limitation under Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(i), and as such, Defendant was in breach of contract and Defendant’s denial of coverage was improper.
3. The date of loss was 10/13/16. Defendant received notice of the loss on 10/14/16. The first medical bills were received on 11/1/16. On 11/16/16, Defendant timely noticed an EUO to occur on 11/21/16. Plaintiff’s failed to appear at said EUO’s. On 12/20/16, Defendant noticed EUO’s to occur on 12/28/16. Plaintiff’s failed to appear at said EUO’s. Defendant issued a denial of coverage on 1/19/17.
4. Defendant violated the PIP statute by failing to pay or deny the claim within 30 days and did not invoke the additional time limitation under Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(i), and as such, Defendant was in breach of contract. As such, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment is HEREBY GRANTED.
5. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment primarily argued that Plaintiff did not have standing inasmuch as Plaintiff’s had executed assignments of benefits to the respective medical providers. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY DENIED.
6. Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment argues that Plaintiff’s pleadings seek to avoid res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the strictures of Rule 1.420(a)(1) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure by having different Plaintiffs and different types of actions which will all rely upon the same accident, policy and defense. Further, the Declaratory action in this case and the other cases amounts to what is called “procedural fencing” and that this action has implications on the other cases in the State. This demonstrates that there is not a bona fide dispute before the Court to make a declaration. Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY DENIED.
7. The Court reserves jurisdiction over attorney’s fees and costs.
