Volume 10

Case Search

ACTIVE SPINE CENTERS, L.L.C., a/a/o Mahalia Rodriguez, Plaintiff(s), vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Corp., Defendant(s).

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1024a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary treatment — Directed verdict is entered in favor of medical provider where provider’s expert testified credibly that treatments received by insured were reasonable, related, and necessary and insurer failed to either substantially discredit provider’s expert or come forth with own expert in rebuttal

Read More »

STEPHEN SOUDERS, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Florida, Defendant.

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1059a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Claim — Denial — Insurer has not yet denied claim and, therefore, insured’s suit is premature where insurer sent request for explanation of benefits and staff person of insured’s attorney’s office sent insurer note stating medical provider is unable to produce requested documentation — Note not purporting to be communication authorized by medical provider was insufficient to require insurer to decide within ten days of its receipt whether to pay claim, deny claim or initiate formal discovery — Summary judgment granted in favor of insurer

Read More »

MID-FLORIDA IMAGING CENTERS, L.C., as assignee of MANUEL GOMEZ, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 135a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Statutes — Effective date — Where bill indicates generally that subsections establishing allowable amounts for treatment and services shall apply to treatments and services after October 1, 2001, and subparagraph regarding allowable amounts for MRIs states that it is effective upon becoming law, the effective date of MRI allowable amounts is date the bill was signed into law by the Governor — Constitutional law — Statute with effective date before October 1, 2001, is not unconstitutional interference with existing contracts where new provisions change only the amount to be charged for services and would not affect substantive rights under existing contracts

Read More »
Skip to content