5 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 556b
Arbitration — Insurance — Section of personal injury protection statute requiring binding arbitration where there is valid assignment between medical provider and insured is constitutional and enforceable against medical provider — Defendant’s several filings in case, including requests for discovery, were inconsistent with subsequent demand to arbitrate and amounted to waiver of right — Court retains subject matter jurisdiction
HEALTH CARE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., (As Assignee of Tiras Singletary), Plaintiff, vs. SEMINOLE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 97-7885-SC. Division: K. March 23, 1998. Manuel A. Lopez, Judge.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on March 11, 1998, on Defendant’s Motion For Re-Hearing on its Motion To Compel Arbitration, and the Court having heard oral and written argument of counsel and otherwise being fully advised of the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1. The section of the Personal Injury Protection Statute (PIP) requiring binding arbitration where there is a valid assignment between a medical provider and an insured is constitutional and enforceable against a medical provider. Orion Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Systems, Inc., 696 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997).
2. The Defendant filed a Motion For More Definite Statement/Alternative Answer with Affirmative Defenses, Demand for Jury Trial and a Counter-claim for Arbitration in response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. That Defendant filed objections to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories, First Request to Produce and First Request For Admissions. That Defendant filed a Notice of Intention To Seek Fees. That almost four months after submitting itself to this Court’s jurisdiction and seeking the benefits and protection of Discovery, Defendant demanded that this Court compel arbitration in its Motion For Protective Order. The aforementioned acts of Defendant are inconsistent with a subsequent demand to arbitrate and amounted to a waiver of its right to arbitrate. Bared & Co. v. Specialty Maintenance & Constr. Co., 610 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); O’Flarity v. Trend Star Development Inc., 689 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
3. This case shall go forward as the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over this case based on the aforementioned acts by Defendant that have waived its right to arbitration.
* * *
