Volume 28

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 239a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2803LDAVInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Defects — Motion to abate PIP case to allow service of new demand letter is granted where error in original demand letter was first raised by insurer in its affirmative defenses and medical provider immediately moved to abate action — Extension of time to respond to proposal for settlement is granted

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 419b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2805MIAMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Validity — Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand did not satisfy plain language of section 627.736(10) where policy was sufficient to elect the fee schedule payment methodology of section 627.736(5)(a) but demand letter did not account for application of the fee schedules; demand letter failed to provide insurer notice and an opportunity to avoid litigation; and demand included services for which payment was not yet due

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 84a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2801AXEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Affirmative defenses — Amendment — Motion to amend affirmative defenses to assert defense regarding invalidity of demand letter is granted — Argument that insurer waived demand letter defense by failing to raise issue before suit was filed is not ripe for consideration and is not supported by any record evidence

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 236a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2803ALLIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Sufficiency — Demand letter was valid notwithstanding fact that it referenced incorrect claim number where insurer sustained no prejudice from error — Demand letter that included itemized statement in form of original HICF substantially complied with section 627.736(10) — Letter is not deficient for failing to indicate exact amount owed

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 536b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806MENEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Sufficiency — Demand letter for transportation costs did not satisfy requirements of section 627.736(10) where letter did not specify medical clinic to which insured traveled, dates of treatment for which he traveled, or exact amount due and owing — Policy limits were properly exhausted

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 536b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806MENEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Sufficiency — Demand letter for transportation costs did not satisfy requirements of section 627.736(10) where letter did not specify medical clinic to which insured traveled, dates of treatment for which he traveled, or exact amount due and owing — Policy limits were properly exhausted

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 536b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806MENEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Sufficiency — Demand letter for transportation costs did not satisfy requirements of section 627.736(10) where letter did not specify medical clinic to which insured traveled, dates of treatment for which he traveled, or exact amount due and owing — Policy limits were properly exhausted

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 538a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806DRIVInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Transportation costs — Demand letter for transportation costs that failed to provide address of medical provider visited or dates of service and identified incorrect medical provider did not satisfy condition precedent to suit

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 421a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2805BEAUInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Denial of coverage based on alleged failure to appear at multiple examinations under oath — Insurer was in breach of contract because insurer violated PIP statute by failing to pay or deny claim within 30 days and did not invoke the additional time limitation under section 627.736(4)(i)

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 85a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2801PIERInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Condition precedent — Examination under oath — Where both PIP statute and policy provide that EUO is condition precedent to receipt of benefits and insured failed to appear at three scheduled EUOs, medical provider is not entitled to PIP benefits — Insurer that scheduled EUOs to occur more than thirty days after receipt of provider’s bills did not thereby waive right to notice EUO — Further, where PIP policy contains “no action clause” that states that lawsuit against insurer is precluded until insured fully complies with all provisions of policy, policy bars suit until EUO requirement is met