7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 546a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Motion for summary judgment granted as plaintiff has no cause of action for breach of contract when insurer contends that it has paid all reasonable expenses submitted and has promised to defend and indemnify plaintiff should plaintiff be pursued by any health care provider for balance resulting from insurer’s determination that amount of submitted charge was unreasonable — Attorney’s fees — Motion for partial summary judgment and to determine entitlement to attorney’s fees denied except as to interest issues — A report, as described in Section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes, is not required before insurer can defend based upon contention that amount of charges at issue is unreasonable — Issues surrounding reasonableness of amount of charges are governed by Section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes, which contains no similar “report requirement”
RENEE M. GARIEPY, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County, Civil Division. Case No. 99-7273-CC. April 26, 2000. Emanuel Logalbo, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Anthony J. Parrino; James D. Dreyer, Jr.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and to Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, on March 27, 2000, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as Plaintiff has no cause of action for breach of contract when Defendant contends that it has paid all reasonable expenses submitted and has promised to defend and indemnify Plaintiff should Plaintiff be pursued by any health care provider for a balance resulting from Defendant’s determination that the amount of a submitted charge was unreasonable. Plaintiff has suffered no damage unless Defendant fails to defend and indemnify Plaintiff as promised.
It is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and to Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees is DENIED except as to the interest issues set forth in that motion for which a separate order will be issued. This Court finds that, aside from the interest issues referenced above, the only issues presented in this case involve Defendant’s contention that the amount of certain charges for medical services was unreasonably high. As such, this Court holds that Section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes, does not apply to the issues involved herein as that subsection deals with issues surrounding the mental and physical condition of an insured and the reasonableness, necessity and relatedness of medical treatment of an insured. Therefore, this Court specifically holds that a report, as described in Section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes, is not required before Defendant can defend based upon a contention that the amount of the charges at issue is unreasonable. Rather, issues surrounding the reasonableness of the amount of the charges are governed by Section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes, which contains no similar “report requirement.” The cases relied upon by Plaintiff, namely United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Viles, 726 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), Derius v. Allstate Indemn. Co., 723 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) and Perez v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 746 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), are distinguishable as the courts deciding those cases had no occasion to adjudicate the factual underpinnings presented here and, furthermore, the language relied upon by Plaintiff in those cases is dicta.
* * *
