9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 871b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Section 627.736(5)(a) does not require insured to countersign legally assigned invoice, bill or health insurance claim form as condition precedent to insurer paying claim
DR. JASON T. MARUCCI d/b/a SPINAL HEALTH REHAB CENTERS as assignee for Johanna Poveda, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No 02-012691 COCE (49). October 25, 2002. Kathleen D. Ireland, Judge. Counsel: Cris Boyar, for Plaintiff. Ana D’Costa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court and the Court having reviewed the pleadings and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
The Plaintiff medical provider filed suit against the Defendant insurance company for PIP benefits. The Plaintiff attached a valid assignment of benefits to the complaint. The Defendant filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses. The Plaintiff seeks a Partial Summary Judgment on the first Affirmative Defense.
In this affirmative defense, the Defendant alleges the Plaintiff failed to provide legal notice of a covered loss because the Plaintiff’s patient failed to countersign an invoice, bill or claim form as required by Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(a). The Court finds the Defendant’s argument is without merit as Florida law does not require the patient to countersign a legally assigned invoice, bill or health insurance claim form as a condition precedent to the insurer paying the claim. See Total Health Care v. United Automobile Insurance Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 659 (Fla. 11th Cir. Court 2002); See Dr. Steven Chase v. United Automobile, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 458 (Fla. Dade Cty Court 2001); The Premier Center for Personal Injuires v. Untied, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 501(Fla. Dade Cty Court 2001); USA Diagnostics v. Star Casualty, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 851 (Fla. Broward Cty Court 2001, Judge Herring); Choice Medical Center v. Seminole, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 196 (Fla. Palm Beach Cty Court 2002); Northwest Broward Orthopaedics v. Progressive, Case Number 01-23971 (50) (Fla. Broward Cty Court 2002, Judge Skolnik); ROM DIAGNOSTICS v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 392a (Fla. 9th Circuit Court 2002); South Florida Open MRI, v. United Automobile Insurance Company, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397a (Fla. Dade Cty Court 2002); USA DIAGNOSTICS., INC., v. STAR CASUALTY, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 410b (Fla. Broward Cty Court 2002, Judge Herring); South Florida MRI v. United Auto. Insurance Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397 (Fla. Dade Cty Court 2002); Health Care Associates of Florida v. United Auto. Insurance Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397 (Fla. Dade Cty Court 2002, Judge Adderly); Dr. Steven Brown v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., Case Number 01-025206 (54) (Fla. Broward Cty Court 2002, Judge Wright); Medical Specialists v. United, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 708 (Fla. Orange County Court 2002). This Court finds these decisions persuasive and well reasoned. There has been a long standing policy of Florida Courts to construe the PIP statute liberally in favor of coverage and the insured. Palma v. State Farm, 489 So.2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to this affirmative defense with prejudice. The Defendant is further directed to not make any reference to the counter signature issue at the time of trial and to instruct its witnesses of this Court’s order.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted for the reasons stated above.
* * *
