fbpx

Volume 28

Case Search

MELI ORTHOPEDIC CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE, LLC., a/a/o John Colonel, Plaintiff v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 350a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2804COLOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Additional driver — Nonresident relative who is named additional driver in parents’ PIP policy and who was injured while driving modified golf cart/low speed vehicle owned by his employer while fulfilling his employment functions is not entitled to coverage under parents’ policy — While policy does not expressly define term “additional driver,” it is clear from policy read in total that term refers to those that live in same residence as named insured and/or drive insured vehicle — Claimant’s employer is required to maintain policy providing PIP coverage to persons injured while occupying golf cart

Read More »

CENTRAL FLORIDA MEDICAL & CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., d/b/a STERLING MEDICAL GROUP, a/a/o Yisell Peralta, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 524a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806PERAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Stay — Insurer’s motion to stay PIP case based on claim that it did not receive emergency medical condition determination prior to suit being filed is denied — Explanation of benefits that states that documentation is insufficient to support services billed but makes no mention of need for EMC determination was insufficient notice that insurer was requesting EMC determination — Moreover, medical provider has offered evidence that EMC determination was provided to insurer prior to date of EOB, and insurer has had more than adequate time to consider EMC determination received post-suit

Read More »

CUTTING EDGE REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, BUILDING DEPARTMENT, Appellee.

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 463c

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806CUTTMunicipal corporations — Code enforcement — Unsafe structures — Final order of city unsafe structures panel requiring demolition of property found to be 70% deteriorated and to present health, fire, and hazard problem is affirmed — No merit to claim that panel failed to consider valuation criteria contained in city code — Due process — Notice — Where property owner received notice that city building department was going to initiate demolition proceedings if he did not comply with requirement to obtain demolition or building permit within ten days and subsequent notices telling him to contact department for compliance information, but owner took no action in response to notices, owner cannot claim on appeal that he was surprised to learn of demolition recommendation at hearing before panel

Read More »
Skip to content