Volume 17

Case Search

ISABEL FRAYLE, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 591a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1707FRAY

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — 2007 PIP statute in effect at time policy was executed, which provides for payment of 80% of reasonable charges, rather than 2008 PIP statute in effect at time of treatment, which provides for payment of 80% of 200% of Medicare Part B fee schedule, is applicable where statutory change impairs vested rights

Read More »

A REHAB ASSOCIATES OF S. FLA, CORP, a Florida Corporation (assignee of Suarez, Nelson 2), Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 478a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1706SUAR

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — 2007 PIP statute that was in effect at time policy was executed and policy language requiring that medical expenses be paid at 80% of reasonable charges, rather than 2008 PIP statute which provides for reduced payment, is applicable

Read More »

BEAVER & KIRSHNER, P.A. d/b/a/ INFINITY MEDICAL AND REHAB (a/a/o Lillian Weiner), Plaintiff, vs. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 475c

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1706WEIN

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — 2007 PIP statute in effect at time policy was issued, rather than 2008 PIP statute which was in effect at time of treatment and which provides for reduced payment, is applicable where express language of 2008 statute forbids application to policy which had expired prior to effective date of statute, and statutory change is substantive and may not be applied retroactively

Read More »

PLANTATION OPEN MRI, LLC., (Octavia Parrish), Plaintiff(s), vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s).

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 701a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1708PARR

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Policy issued during statutory gap period — Language of policy issued during time when there was no PIP statute in effect, which provides for payment of 80% of reasonable charges, rather than PIP statute in effect at time of treatment, which provides for payment of 200% of Medicare fee schedule, is applicable where statutory change is substantive and statement in policy that insurer “will pay in accordance with Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, as amended” does not clearly and unambiguously provide that insured has expressly consented to future statutory changes

Read More »

RONALD J. TRAPANA, M.D., P.A., a Florida Corporation (assignee of Muscarella, Frank), Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 699a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1708MUSC

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1042b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Policy issued during statutory gap period — Language of policy issued during time when there was no PIP statute in effect, which provides for payment of 80% of reasonable charges, rather than PIP statute in effect at time of treatment, which provides for payment of 200% of Medicare fee schedule, is applicable where statutory change is substantive and statement in policy that insurer “will pay in accordance with Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, as amended” does not clearly and unambiguously provide that insured has expressly consented to future statutory changes

Read More »

NORTHWEST CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, INC. (a/a/o April Burger), Plaintiff, vs. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 596a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1707BURG

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Policy issued during statutory gap period — Where PIP policy was executed during statutory gap period when there was no PIP statute, policy language requiring that insurer pay 80% of medical expenses controls reimbursement — 2008 amendment to PIP statute to provide for payment of 200% of Medicare and/or workers’ compensation fee schedules cannot be applied retroactively to policy executed prior to effective date of amendment where statutory change is substantive, and policy does not clearly and unambiguously provide that insured has expressly consented to incorporate future statutory changes into policy

Read More »

STATE OF FLORIDA vs. SILVERIO MISAEL MOMOTIC, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 43a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1701MOMO

Criminal law — Speedy trial — Where defendant did not waive right to speedy trial, and state did not file information until well after speedy trial had expired, defendant is entitled to immediate discharge, and state is not entitled to recapture period — Further, defendant is entitled to discharge because he filed notice of expiration of speedy trial, but hearing on motion was not held, and defendant was not brought to trial within fifteen days of filing notice

Read More »

RIVERO DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, INC., (a/a/o Leonardo Fernandez), Plaintiff, v. U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 35a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1701RIVE

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Policy issued during statutory gap period — Where reenacted PIP statute provided that reenacted law was effective January 1, 2008, and expressly provided that any PIP policy in effect on or after that date would be deemed to incorporate provisions of reenacted law, insurer properly paid claim for treatment that occurred after January 1, 2008, at 80% of 200% of Medicare fee schedule as provided for in reenacted statute — Change in reimbursement fee schedule did not amount to unconstitutional impairment of contract because new law had been enacted, although it was not yet effective, when policy was executed, and policy contemplated that it would incorporate applicable changes in no-fault law

Read More »

CHRISTINE WALSH, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 21a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1701WALS

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Where insurance policy in effect for insured during gap period between sunsetting of PIP statute and passage of new PIP law did not include PIP coverage, summary judgment is entered in favor of insurer in suit for PIP benefits for accident that occurred during gap period

Read More »
Skip to content