Volume 24

Case Search

CARE WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, (a/a/o Virginia Bardon-Diaz), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 383a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2405BARDInsurance — Personal injury protection — Deductible — PIP insurer improperly applied statutory fee schedule to reduce bills before applying those bills to deductible — Pursuant to both PIP statute and policy terms, fee schedule may only be applied to bills for which benefits are actually paid — Question certified: Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627.739, is an insurer required to apply the deductible to 100% of an insured’s expenses and losses prior to applying any permissive fee schedule payment limitation found in §627.736(5)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (2013)?

Read More »

SYNERGY WELLNESS CLINIC, LLC, a/a/o Aesha Wigfall, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Defendant.

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 966a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2411WIGFInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Deductible — PIP statute requires insurer to apply deductible to 100% of reasonable, related and necessary medical expenses — Where reasonableness, relatedness, and necessity of charges incurred following accident that did not result in any visible damage to either school bus in which insured was passenger or truck with which bus collided is in dispute, question of fact exists as to whether charges at issue were applicable to policy deductible as compensable charges and, if so, to what extent

Read More »

A-FIRST CHOICE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC. a/a/o Orlando Ramirez, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 460a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2406ORAMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Proposal for settlement — Defendant in action for declaratory relief was entitled to submit proposal for settlement, although claim raised was equitable on its face, where affirmative answer to either of the questions raised in complaint had no independent value separate and apart from serving as precursor for plaintiff to establish that defendant breached insurance contract by underpaying PIP benefits — Motion to strike offer of judgment is denied — Motion for enlargement of time to respond to proposal for settlement until after plaintiff takes deposition of defendant’s PIP litigation adjuster is denied — Although plaintiff timely filed request for enlargement of time before 30-day period for acceptance expired, it did not file notice of hearing until well after 30-day period expired — Filing of rule 1.090(b) motion to enlarge time to accept proposal for settlement does not automatically toll 30-day period for accepting that proposal until motion to enlarge is decided

Read More »
Skip to content