fbpx

Volume 23

Case Search

PAN AM DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC., d/b/a WIDE OPEN MRI, a/a/o Hudland Clarke, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 969b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2411CLARInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — PIP policy providing that insurer will pay 80% of reasonable expenses, but also providing that in no event will insurer pay more than 80% of No-Fault Act schedule of maximum charges, provides clear and unambiguous notice of intent to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule

Read More »

BOFSHEVER WELLNESS CENTER, LLC (Assignee of Polycarpe, Hermana), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 969a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2411POLYInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — PIP policy providing that insurer will pay 80% of reasonable medical expenses and also providing that in no event will insurer pay more than 80% of No-Fault Act schedule of maximum charges provides clear and unambiguous notice of intent to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule

Read More »

LAKE WORTH CHIRO. ASSOC., INC., d/b/a CHIRO ASSOC. OF LAKE WORTH, a/a/o Ana Hernandez, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 964a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2411HERNInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Insurer could limit reimbursement to schedule of maximum charges found in PIP statute where insurer advised insured that in no event will it pay more than 80% of schedule of maximum charges

Read More »

FIRST COAST MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a/a/o Breaunee Price, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 962a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2411PRICInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Statutory fee schedules — Clear and unambiguous election — PIP policy that states that insurer will limit reimbursement to 80% of properly billed and documented reasonable charge and also reserves the right to make a reasonableness challenge to any charges, services or expenses provided legally sufficient notice of intent to limit reimbursement to statutory fee schedule, even though policy clearly commingles payment methodologies in PIP statute

Read More »

RICHARD W. MERRITT, D.C., P.A., (assignee of Wilkinson, Marilyn), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 961a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2411WILKInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — PIP policy that states that insurer will limit reimbursement to 80% of properly billed and documented reasonable charge but in no event will pay more than 80% of schedule of maximum charges provided legally sufficient notice of election to limit reimbursement to statutory fee schedule

Read More »

GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY, INC., a/a/o KRISTINE VALDES, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, v. ALL X RAY DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, CORP., Third Party Defendant.

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 604b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2306VALDNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 189aInsurance — Pleadings — Sham — Insurer’s third-party complaint against medical provider pleading indemnity, unjust enrichment, equitable estoppel, and detrimental reliance is stricken as sham pleading where allegations are inherently false and were clearly known to be false based on plain and conceded facts — Court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions for frivolous litigation

Read More »

SUNSET RADIOLOGY, INC., a/a/o JAVIER MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 374a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2304JMARInsurance — Personal injury protection — Small claims — Venue — Where insurer failed to timely raise its challenge to venue under requirements of small claims rules, insurer waived any future challenges to venue — Invocation of rules of civil procedure at pre-trial conference applied only to proceedings subsequent to pre-trial conference and did not provide insurer with additional opportunity to object to venue

Read More »
Skip to content