Volume 8

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 464a

Contracts — Insurance — Coverage — Promissory estoppel — Based on theory of promissory estoppel, insured is entitled to payment of medical bills incurred after telephone conversation with insurer wherein, by mutual mistake, insurer and insured agreed that benefits would be extended to certain date — Plaintiff proved by clear and convincing evidence action for promissory estoppel where insurer made definite and substantial promise, insured detrimentally relied on that promise and continued to seek medical treatment, and insurer should have reasonably expected the promise to induce reliance on part of insured — Unclean hands — There exists bona fide dispute between parties, and neither party has come to court with unclean hands

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 862b

Attorneys — Disqualification — Conflict of interest — Insurance — Neither attorney who previously represented insurer, nor his current associate and law firm, are disqualified from representing plaintiff in personal injury protection claim against insurer — Instant case is factually distinctive from other PIP cases — Discovery will eliminate any advantage that attorney may have due to prior representation of insurer — Sufficient time has passed since attorney was associated with firm that represented insurer that attorney has no prejudicial advantage in current case

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 862a

Attorneys — Disqualification — Conflict of interest — Insurance — Attorney who previously represented insurer is not disqualified from representing plaintiffs in personal injury protection claims against insurer where there is no specific transaction in which attorney represented insurer and in which attorney is now attempting to represent a plaintiff, and there is no showing by insurer of substantial relationship between the PIP cases it must defend and matters or causes of action wherein attorney previously represented the insurer

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 861c

Attorneys — Disqualification — Conflict of interest — Insurance — Attorney who previously represented insurer is not disqualified from representing plaintiffs in personal injury protection claims against insurer where there is no specific transaction in which attorney represented insurer and in which attorney is now attempting to represent a plaintiff, and there is no showing by insurer of substantial relationship between the PIP cases it must defend and matters or causes of action wherein attorney previously represented the insurer

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 861b

Attorneys — Disqualification — Conflict of interest — Insurance — Attorney who previously represented insurer is not disqualified from representing plaintiffs in personal injury protection claims against insurer where there is no specific transaction in which attorney represented insurer and in which attorney is now attempting to represent a plaintiff, and there is no showing by insurer of substantial relationship between the PIP cases it must defend and matters or causes of action wherein attorney previously represented the insurer

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 847c

Attorneys — Disqualification — Conflict of interest — Insurance — Motion to disqualify is denied

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 841a

Attorneys — Disqualification — Conflict of interest — Insurance — Cases brought under section 627.736 are not substantially related just because they are brought under same statute

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 321b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — PIP insurer fulfilled its duty to pay legitimately payable hospital expenses when it apportioned PIP benefits between two hospital bills — Insurer was not under duty to withhold PIP benefits from a hospital lienor submitting a legitimate claim and coordinate benefits with another health insurer in order to pay a potential wage loss claim that might be submitted later — Even if PIP insurer was under duty to coordinate benefits, it was duty to coordinate among existing claims — Insured’s furnishing of request to insurer to reserve benefits for developing wage loss claim does not authorize judicial imposition of obligation to coordinate benefits which may tend to impair insurer in fulfillment of its duty to make prompt payment of legitimate claims for medical expenses — PIP insurer is not under duty to coordinate benefits with another insurer in derogation of its obligation to promptly pay legitimate claims submitted by medical service providers

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 568a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Action for balance of partially paid bill where policy limits have been exhausted by payment of subsequent claims — Where insured made a valid assignment of benefits to medical provider, insurer received assignment and acted on it by paying reduced amount to provider although it had more than enough PIP benefits to pay disputed amount when it paid reduced bill, provider notified insurer that it contested the reduction and requested that the disputed amount be placed in reserve so that the policy limits not be exhausted prior to resolution of the dispute, insurer did not place disputed amount in reserve but paid other providers for bills received after the disputed billing, thereby exhausting benefits, and insurer does not contest reasonableness of bill in action by provider for disputed amount, insurer is ordered to pay disputed amount despite exhaustion of PIP benefits — Attorney’s fees and costs awarded to provider — Prejudgment interest — Insurer to pay interest on claim from time that check for reduced amount was sent to provider — Question certified whether an insurer providing a policy of PIP insurance with a finite amount of coverage can be held liable for extra-contractual damages once benefits being paid on the insured’s behalf exhaust the available policy limits — Question certified: Does interest pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 627.736 continue to accrue once benefits have been exhausted under the insured’s policy

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 802a

Insurance — Plaintiff/insured was not party to contractual agreement between medical provider and insurer and was not third-party beneficiary of contract — Agreement between provider and insurer was not a preferred provider agreement, but simply a negotiated fee schedule to be used if an insured of the defendant uses the provider’s services — Insurer entitled to summary judgment on issue of whether agreement entered into by provider is valid agreement — Ruling does not decide ramifications if provider is making demands on plaintiff for payment in excess of the contract rate