Volume 19

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 875a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1910CASTInsurance — Discovery — Claims file privilege — Following in camera inspection, all documents in claims file are protected by claims file privilege until issue of coverage is resolved

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 944a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1911HHOLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Admissions — Amendment — Where, although medical provider has relied on insurer’s admissions for one year, case has not been set for trial or come up for summary judgment hearing and discovery remains to be completed, request to amend admissions to be consistent with affirmative defenses is granted

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 479a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1906POZOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Insurer is not permitted to take depositions of treating physicians at this time where adjuster testified in his deposition that denial of payment for medical bills was based in part on insured’s failure to cooperate and attend examination under oath

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 125b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1902MPIEInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Insurer is entitled to take depositions of medical provider’s billing and records custodian and corporate representative prior to provider taking deposition of insurer’s corporate representative to ensure that all relevant issues are developed prior to taking insurer’s representative’s deposition so that representative could be prepared for deposition

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 287a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1904LAPOInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Sequence

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 173a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1903RUESInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Surveillance videos — Error to compel insurer to produce surveillance video prior to having opportunity to depose subjects of video — Where insurer intends to use surveillance video as evidence, insurer should have disclosed existence of video in discovery rather than masking video’s existence by only disclosing existence of “investigative report” — Medical provider’s counsel had responsibility to act promptly to prevent undue delays in scheduling depositions

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 358a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1905ADVAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Insurer’s motion to compel deposition of person with most knowledge of reasonableness of charges is denied — Reasonableness of charges is immaterial since insurer used schedule to reimburse medical provider

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 586b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1907LABRInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Expert witness fee — Treating physician is not entitled to expert witness fee for his deposition testimony

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 799a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1910BROCInsurance — Personal injury protection — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Peer review — Trial court properly excluded insurer’s expert’s peer review affidavit, offered in opposition to motion for summary judgment, based on failure of expert to maintain required medical and financial records involving PIP examinations for three years, and court properly required expert to produce business records under rule 1.280 since exceptional circumstances warranted production — However, because medical provider confessed error on this issue, appellate court reverses — Trial court correctly found that cutoff date for PIP benefits is date insurer sent written notice of suspension of benefits to insured, not date insurer obtained report of independent medical examination — No error in finding that treating physician is entitled to expert witness fee

19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 779a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1910ORTEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Issue of whether treating physician is entitled to expert witness fee for deposition testimony is not ripe where insurer did not proceed with deposition after trial court required payment of fee — Independent medical examination — Trial court erred in finding that effective date of IME cutoff letter was date letter was sent rather than date IME was conducted — Further, since PIP statute does not require that insurer send IME cutoff letter to insured’s attorney, trial court erred in extending IME cutoff date due to failure to provide cutoff letter to attorney — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of provider on affirmative defense that expenses incurred after date of IME were not reasonable, related and necessary — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of provider on affirmative defense of late billing where there was conflict in evidence as to whether bills were actually sent and received