Volume 13

Case Search

OLIN NEZIFORT, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 984a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contempt — Where it appears from plaintiff’s willful, wanton and contumacious disregard of discovery order and order to show cause, plaintiff’s failure to attend compulsory medical examination and deposition, and evidence suggesting that plaintiff has left his address and failed to renew his Florida driver’s license that plaintiff no longer desires to continue legal action, case is dismissed without prejudice

Read More »

JLD FOODS, d/b/a CHUBBY’S, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1073a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Default — Where insurer failed to comply with court orders requiring submission of interrogatory responses under oath and production of corporate representative for deposition, there is pattern of insurer requiring court to enter orders compelling discovery with sanctions, insurer was personally involved in acts of disobedience, and insurer’s justification for disobedience is insufficient, insurer’s pleadings are stricken and default is entered

Read More »

GARY H. WEISS, D.C., DABFE, As assignee of NANCY CASTILLO, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 512a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Expert witness — Physician who performed independent medical examination of insured is ordered to comply with subpoena duces tecum to produce to medical provider documents and information regarding other IMEs and peer reviews rendered in past three years and compensation for IMEs and reports

Read More »

1ST HEALTH INC., AS ASSIGNEE OF ERNESTO IBARRA, Plaintiff, v. SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1210a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Software used to reduce medical bills — Where insurer asserts defense that bills exceeded reasonable and customary charges, and it is undisputed that results provided by software owned by third party were sole basis upon which claims were denied or reduced, insurer must produce computer programs and data used to assess bills or independently prove defense without reference to computer program or results — Fact that insurer employed third party or used third party’s computer program to deny or reduce benefits does not affect medical provider’s right to discovery — Privilege — Trade secrets — Mere assertion of trade secret privilege does not foreclose discovery because court can limit disclosure to avoid irreparable harm — Further, privilege claim is inapplicable in light of insurer’s intention to rely on computer program at trial — Insurer that does not own program has no standing to assert trade secret privilege — Provider is not required to seek third party discovery from owner of program where insurer is already obligated to produce program upon which it relied to make challenged reductions and denials

Read More »
Skip to content