28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 356a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2804KOPE
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Complaint — Amendment — Where insurer confessed judgment based on jurisdictional limits in original complaint, court lacks jurisdiction to grant medical provider’s motion to amend complaint to increase amount in controversy
SPECIALTY HEALTH ASSOCIATES, LLC., a/a/o Norman Kope, Plaintiff, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2018-SC-033144-XX. June 3, 2020. Benjamin B. Garagozlo, Judge. Counsel: Thomas E. Flanagan, III, Kane Lawyers, PLLC, Delray Beach, for Plaintiff. Megan Lindsey, Law Office of Kelly L. Wilson, Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court for a hearing pursuant to Defendant’s motion for entry of confessed judgment along with Plaintiff’s motion to enter final judgment for policy limits, and motion to certify a question to the District Court as being one of great importance, along with previously filed motion to amend Statement of Claim. The Court having reviewed the pleadings, heard argument of counsel1, and being otherwise fully advised in the premise, the Court finds as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is a breach of contract action with the amount in controversy being less than $500.00. Specialty Health Associates, LLC., as assignee of the insured — Norman Kope (hereinafter may also be referred to as “Plaintiff”) has brought this lawsuit claiming that GEICO Indemnity Company (hereinafter may also be referred to as the “GEICO” or “Insurer”) breached the automobile insurance policy at bar with respect to Personal Injury Protection “PIP” coverage reimbursements herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim filed on June 19, 2018, alleging an amount in controversy of $100.00 – $500.00 {a copy of the demand letter was not attached thereto}.
2. On June 11, 2019, Defendant confessed judgment and filed a “Notice of Confession of Judgment’ on June 12, 2019. Said confession of judgment was for $500.00 — reflecting the maximum jurisdictional amount as alleged in the Statement of Claim together with $68.82 as interest further stipulating to Plaintiff’s entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
3. Thereafter, on July 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint stating the incorrect amount was pled and the correct sum is $500.00-$2500.00.
4. Plaintiff also filed an objection to the confession of judgment with an a demand letter attached alleging the amount actually owed was $2,244.58. Plaintiff now seeks the entry of Orders denying the confession of judgment or the entry of a final judgment in the amount of $10,000, or in the alternative asking for leave of court to amend Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.
ISSUES
5. For reasons set forth infra, the Court will limit the analysis to whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to take any other action other than to enter a judgment once the Defendant-insurer has unilaterally confessed to judgment2.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
6. Defendant in support of its motion for entry of confessed judgment cites to the case of Geico v. Barber, 147 So.3d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1727a]. The Barber Court held that “. . . after [Defendant] confessed to judgment, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take any action other than to enter judgment in the amount of the UM policy limits in favor of [Plaintiff]”. Geico v. Barber, 147 So.3d. at 111, citing Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Fridman, 117 So.3d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D1159c].
7. The Plaintiff argues the case of Geico v. Barber, 147 So.3d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1727a] should not be followed since this decision was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court in Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 185 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 2016) [41 Fla. L. Weekly S62a].
8. With due respect to the Plaintiff’s argument, the Barber decision has not been overruled by the Fridman Court. Rather, the Florida Supreme Court in the Fridman case ruled that a trial court may retain jurisdiction to allow a plaintiff to amend a complaint in order to seek bad-faith damages against an insurer. Id. at 1230.
9. As evident by Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, the relief sough is for a quantifiable amount. There is no claim for an excess judgment i.e. seeking ‘bad-faith‘ damages or other ‘extracontractual benefits‘.
10. Simply put therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to take any action other than to enter judgment for the maximum jurisdictional amount set out in the Statement of Claim together with an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and taxable costs. See: Advanced 3D Diagnostics, Inc. v. Geico, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1036b (Orange Cty. Ct. Nov. 13, 2019) (where insurer confessed judgment based on jurisdictional limits in original complaint, court lacks jurisdiction to grant medical provider’s motion to amend complaint to increase amount in controversy); see also: Chirocare of Sunrise, LLC v. Geico, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 202a (Broward Cty. Ct. March 21, 2019 nunc pro tunc April 13, 2018) (where medical provider filed complaint seeking damages with maximum jurisdictional amount not to exceed $500, and insurer thereafter filed confession of judgment to maximum jurisdictional amount and stipulated to provider’s entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees, insurer made valid confession of judgment and court lacks jurisdiction to consider amended complaint seeking additional damages). Whereupon it is hereby;
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
11. Defendant’s motion for entry of confessed judgment is granted. Defendant shall submit a Final Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, Specialty Health Associates, LLC., as assignee of the insured — Norman Kope and against the Defendant, GEICO Indemnity Company, for the sum of $500.00, along with the pre-judgment interest in the amount of $68.82, for a total sum of $568.82, nunc pro tunc to the date of confession of Judgment, all of which shall accrue interest at statutory rate, for which sum let execution issue. The Judgment shall further reflect that the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and taxable costs, and reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and taxable costs. it is further:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
12. Consistent with the above rationale, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to enter final judgment for policy limits; Plaintiff’s motion to certify a question to the District Court as being one of great importance, along with Plaintiff’s motion to amend Statement of Claim.
__________________
1The Court must pause to convey this Court’s appreciation for each counsel’s level of advocacy skills and professionalism displayed at the hearing.
2While there is a strong public policy interest in favor of liberally allowing amendments to a lawsuit, timeliness of Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Statement of Claim filed after Defendant’s notice of confession — per the parties’ stipulation — is not to be considered until the Court answers the question of whether the Court “lacks jurisdiction to take any action other than the entry of a judgment”.
