Volume 4

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 440a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Insured alleging insurer acted against her rights when it settled physician’s bill for amount less than eighty percent of the amount originally billed — Nothing in record supports insured’s contention that she was required to make co-payment in amount equalling twenty percent of original bill, rather than twenty percent of lower bill negotiated by insurer

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 510a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — After the fact finding that diagnostic neurological tests were of no use or value in treatment of insured did not support trial court’s conclusion that diagnostic tests did not constitute necessary medical service — Paper review unaccompanied by physical examination not sufficient basis for recommendation that benefits for chiropractic treatment be terminated — After the fact determination that insured received no benefit from last visit with chiropractor does not absolve insurer from liability for expense where last visit was medically necessary

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 48a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — PIP suit amounts to claim for money damages based on breach of contract and, accordingly, party to suit has right to jury trial

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 227a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Husband who had apparent authority to obtain insurance coverage inuring to wife’s benefit also had apparent authority with regard to applicability of deductible

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 869a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Deductible — Dependent relatives residing in insured’s household — Where minor and her family shared living space with insureds, who were relatives of minor’s mother, for short period after arriving from Cuba, depended upon insureds for sustenance for only two days before receiving charitable and governmental assistance, and contributed to household expenses until such time as they became able to support themselves and move out, minor was not financially dependent upon insured at time of accident and was not liable for payment of PIP deductible which would apply to dependent relative living in insured’s household

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 587a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Credits — Workers’ compensation benefits

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 375a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — PIP policy’s provision requiring insured to submit to recorded statement or examination under oath prior to payment of PIP benefits does not violate Florida’s No-Fault Act — Policy provision for recorded statements in no way precludes prompt recovery — Insured’s failure to submit to recorded statement or examination under oath constituted failure to comply with condition precedent, and therefore insured was precluded from receiving PIP benefits

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 380a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Wrongful withholding of benefits — Appellate court must assume lower court decided factual issues correctly where party seeking reversal for insufficiency of evidence failed to provide transcript of proceedings before lower court or stipulated statement of facts as substitute for transcript — Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of insurer as matter of law where plaintiff never provided insurer with medical bills at issue prior to filing lawsuit — Insurer has no obligation to pay benefits to insured until thirty days after claimant supplies proof that covered loss occurred and proof of amount of loss

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 97a
Insurance — Plaintiff had no standing to prosecute claim against insurer where plaintiff had effectively transferred all of her interests and rights in case to medical provider

4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 134a

Employer-employee relations — Employee benefit plans — Employee who received workers’ compensation benefits for work-related injury was specifically precluded by provisions of plan document from receiving short-term disability benefits for same injury — Plan document, which expressly precluded payment of short-term disability benefits for injury or illness covered by workers’ compensation, controlled over summary description of plan, which did not mention restrictions on eligibility for employees receiving workers’ compensation benefits — No genuine inconsistency, uncertainty or ambiguity exists with regard to provisions of plan document precluding payment of disability benefits to workers’ compensation recipients