fbpx

Volume 20

Case Search

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida corporation, Appellant, v. ASSOCIATES IN TRAUMA, INC., a/a/o MODESTA ALVAREZ, Appellee.

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 880a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2009ALVAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Examination under oath — Failure to attend — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of medical provider on insurer’s EUO no-show defense where question of whether insured’s failure to attend EUO was unreasonable and whether insured otherwise cooperated to sufficient level that nonattendance was not material breach of policy are fact questions for jury — Independent medical examination — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of provider on insurer’s IME no-show defense where question of whether failure to appear was unreasonable is fact question for jury — Discovery — Depositions — Expert witness fee — Provider’s owner/medical director, who was not treating physician but who consulted with treating physician and helped create treatment plan, was entitled to expert witness fee for deposition testimony

Read More »

MARY HARDY, Plaintiff(s), vs. INFINITY INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant.

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 622a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2006HARDInsurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory judgment — Claim seeking determination of existence of rescinded policy is not appropriate for declaratory action where insured has adequate remedy at law in action for breach of contract — Count seeking recovery of lost wages is dismissed where PIP statute provides for disability benefits, not lost wages

Read More »

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, f/b/o its insureds, Plaintiffs, vs. FLORIDA SUPERIOR IMAGING, INC., Defendant.

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 143a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2002SUPEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Medical payments — Coverage — Mobile x-rays — Declaratory judgment — Jurisdiction — Insurer seeking declaration that it is not required to pay PIP and/or MP benefits for mobile x-rays rendered to 37 patients because it was not impractical for these insureds to travel to a stationary facility to have x-rays performed as required by administrative rule — Where provider has admitted that the statute of limitations has run on all its claims, provider has no right to recover any of the benefits at issue, and there is no longer a bona fide, actual, present need for declaration sought by insurer

Read More »
Skip to content