28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 374a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2805RUIZ

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Accord and satisfaction — Reasonableness of charges — Trial court correctly rejected insurer’s accord and satisfaction defense, ruling that insurer’s partial payment did not meet the elements of accord and satisfaction under either common law or the Uniform Commercial Code — Trial court abused its discretion by excluding insurer’s conflicting affidavit on whether medical bills at issue were reasonable in price — Taking excluded affidavit into account, it was error to grant summary judgment on issue of reasonableness

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MIAMI DADE COUNTY MRI CORP., a/a/o Juana Espinosa Ruiz, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2017-358-AP-01. L.T. Case No. 2013-011946-SP-23 (04). June 23, 2020. On Appeal from the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Hon. Alexander S. Bokor, Judge. Counsel: Michael Neimand, House Counsel for United Automobile Insurance Company, for Appellant. Chad A. Barr, Law Offices of Chad A. Barr, P.A., for Appellee.

(Before TRAWICK, WALSH and DE LA O¹, JJ.)

OPINION

(PER CURIAM.) On May 16, 2009, Juana Espinosa Ruiz (“Ruiz”) was involved in an automobile accident and sustained personal injuries. She was insured under an automobile policy issued by the Appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company (“United Auto”). Ruiz was treated by Appellee, Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. (“MRI”). Ruiz assigned her right to PIP benefits under the United Auto policy to MRI. MRI subsequently then billed United Auto for services rendered to Ruiz. When United Auto only made a partial payment for the services billed, MRI filed a complaint for breach of contract. In response, United Auto raised the defense of accord and satisfaction and challenged the reasonableness of MRI’s charges. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of MRI on both issues. We agree the trial court was correct in rejecting United Auto’s accord and satisfaction defense. However, we reverse on the issue of reasonableness.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION

United Auto filed a motion for final summary judgment on the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction, and MRI responded with a motion for summary judgment on the same issue. The trial court denied United Auto’s motion and granted MRI’s, ruling that United Auto’s partial payment did not meet the elements of accord and satisfaction under either the common law or the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). We affirm this ruling for the reasons set forth in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Ramos, 2018-218 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., June 11, 2020) [28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 277a].

REASONABLENESS

Having succeeded in defeating United Auto’s accord and satisfaction defense, MRI filed a motion for summary judgment contending its charges were reasonable. MRI relied on an affidavit from its operations manager to establish the reasonableness of its charges. United Auto responded with an affidavit from its adjuster, Denorah Lang. The trial court rejected the conflicting affidavit offered by United Auto and entered summary judgment in favor of MRI.

This case is indistinguishable from our decision in United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Bermudez, 2018-164 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., June 3, 2020) [28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 299a]. As this panel and the majority of prior panels from this Court have found, it was an abuse of discretion to exclude United Auto’s conflicting affidavit on whether the medical bills at issue were reasonable in price. Taking United Auto’s excluded affidavit into account, it was error to grant summary judgment. See State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gables Insurance Recovery a/a/o Yuderis Rego, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 860a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Nov. 20. 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Open MRI of Miami Dade, Ltd. a/a/o Rosa Castillo, Case No. 2017-326-AP-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Nov. 6, 2019) [27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 791b]; United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Marta Figueredo, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 506b (Fla. 11th Cir. App. July 30, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Javier Rodriguez, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 225c (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. July 25, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Rene Dechard, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 226a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., August 12, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Millennium Radiology, LLC a/a/o Javier Rodriguez, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 911b (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., July 19, 2019). Accordingly, the summary judgment and final judgment entered below are hereby REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court.

Appellee’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is conditionally GRANTED, limited to the issue on which it prevailed and conditioned upon ultimately prevailing. Appellant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is conditionally GRANTED, limited to the issue on which it prevailed, conditioned upon Appellant ultimately prevailing and the enforceability of the proposal for settlement, and REMANDED to the trial court to fix amount.

__________________

¹Judge de la O did not participate in oral argument.

__________________

(DE LA O, specially concurs.) I concur in the result. Although I believe that the language United Auto placed in the payee line of the check to MRI satisfies the conspicuousness requirement under the UCC, I equally believe in stare decisis. This Court having previously held in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Ramos, 2018-218 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., June 11, 2020) [28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 277a] that the same facts did not constitute sufficient accord and satisfaction, I am bound to concur here.