Volume 15

Case Search

MERCURY INSURANCE GROUP, Plaintiff, vs. GRAMLING TRANSPORT, INC., A Florida Corporation, SHEILA DARLENE GREEN, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of THOMAS GREEN, Deceased, Defendants.

15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1071a

Insurance — Commercial vehicle — Coverage — Insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify employer from claims brought by estate of employee who died as result of accident on employer’s property where employee qualified as insured under commercial vehicle policy that excluded coverage for bodily injury to employer or insured

Read More »

1st HEALTH, INC. As Assignee of PATRICIA DOAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 181a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Dismissal — Failure to prosecute — Motion to dismiss claim for attorney’s fees for failure to prosecute is granted — Small claims rules do not require 30-day notice and grace period to afford opportunity to cure inaction prior to dismissal for failure to prosecute

Read More »

DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SPINE & REHAB MEDICINE, P.A., a/a/o FRANK MOLINO, JR., Appellee.

15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 861b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Proposal for settlement — Ambiguity — Trial court erred in denying motion to tax attorney’s fees and costs on ground that proposal for settlement was rendered ambiguous by phrase “but not limited to” in release where intent of release to encompass only claims that may be made in underlying litigation is clearly defined and unequivocal from reading of entire proposal

Read More »

SPINE & REHAB MEDICINE, P.A., (As assignee of Faith Walker), Plaintiff, v. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Defendant.

15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 170b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Proposal for settlement — Timeliness — Mere prematurity of proposal for settlement does not bar insurer from recovery of attorney’s fees — Proposal that does not require signing of release and requests only that matter be dismissed with prejudice is not ambiguous

Read More »

BRENCE STEWARD, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. ALL FAMILY CLINICS OF DAYTONA BEACH, INC. d/b/a FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, Third-Party Defendant.

15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 85b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Prevailing party — Where insurer’s third-party complaint against medical provider for common law indemnification, alleging assignment of benefits between insured and provider as special relationship required for indemnification, was dismissed, provider is entitled to award of attorney’s fees and costs — No merit to argument that provider is not entitled to fee award because assignment had been revoked by time complaint was filed where insurer filed complaint despite revocation and, if not for fact that provider accepted assignment, provider would not have been party to suit

Read More »

U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. NORTH MIAMI THERAPY CENTER INC., a/a/o Marie Yvonnette Dessin, Appellee.

15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 582b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Offer of settlement — Medical provider that accepted presuit settlement offer after suit was filed is not prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees and costs — No merit to claim that provider is prevailing party because prior settlement offer was less than amount ultimately recovered by provider as settlement amount plus fees, costs and prejudgment interest where offer was made before suit was filed when there was no entitlement to fees, costs or interest

Read More »

PROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. CRAIG A. NEWMAN, D.C. (a/a/o Reem Riley), Appellee.

15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 129a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Where unrefuted evidence established that medical provider charged PIP insurer substantially more for like services than provider charges under cash discount plan, provider is not entitled to recover disputed balance of reduced claim — Error to find that provider’s intent to defraud is issue of fact precluding summary judgment; intent is not issue under statute precluding provider from charging PIP insurer more than customarily charged for like services not billed to PIP insurers — Improper coding — Upcoding is affirmative defense on which insurer had burden of persuasion — Standing — Because insurer waived standing defense by not raising it in answer, trial court erred in entering summary judgment in insurer’s favor on issue — However, trial court effectively corrected error by allowing provider to amend complaint to assert individual plaintiff to whom assignment was made rather than professional association — Award of prevailing party attorney’s fees in one case is set aside in view of reversal of judgment

Read More »
Skip to content