FL PIP Guide Readers: Vote Now for the 100 Best Legal Blawgs

Readers of the FL PIP Guide are invited to show their support for the blog by voting in the ABA Journal’s annual competition for the 100 Best Legal Blawgs.

Please nominate Roig Lawyers’ FL PIP Guide blog by clicking here to provide a brief explanation on why you like the blog!

In addition to your name and affiliation, you will be asked to provide the URL to the FL PIP Guide (www.flpipguide.com).

You also have the chance to identify a specific blog post that you consider to be representative of the quality of coverage provided by the FL PIP Guide.

Click on the link below to get started.
http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_submit/

Friend-of-the-blawg briefs are due no later than 5 p.m. ET on Friday, August 8, 2014.

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Granted with Prejudice in PIP Benefits Case Involving Challenge to “Emergency Medical Condition” (EMC) Provision

In a second ruling within one week involving Florida’s amended PIP law, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a case challenging reimbursement under the amended statute’s “emergency medical condition” or “EMC” provision. See our earlier post titled Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Robbins v. Garrison P & C.

Sendy Enivert sued her auto insurance company, Progressive Select, alleging breach of contract for failing to pay her PIP benefits to a limit of $10,000. Enivert’s claim involved the newly added provision to Florida’s PIP law which limits PIP benefits depending on whether a claimant has suffered an emergency medical condition.

Plaintiff Enivert interpreted this language to mean that an insured is limited to $2,500 only if a medical provider determines that there is no emergency medical condition. She argued that because, in her case, no medical provider ever made such a determination, she was entitled to the full $10,000. In other words, because no medical provider determined that she did not have an emergency medical condition, she was entitled to full benefits.

Defendant Progressive read the statute to mean the opposite, i.e., that a medical provider must affirmatively determine that an emergency medical condition does exist in order for the insured to be eligible for reimbursement of the full amount.

The court agreed with Progressive, concluding that the PIP statute clearly indicates that a determination that a claimant has suffered an emergency medical condition is required in order to receive benefits in excess of the $2,500 limit. Since a medical provider did not determine that Enivert had an emergency medical condition, she was not entitled to the full $10,000 in benefits.

The court also looked to the legislative intent behind the PIP statute. It concluded that the clear legislative intent was to decrease PIP fraud by placing more stringent requirements in order to receive the maximum amount of benefits.

Based on the above, the court granted Progressive’s motion to dismiss Enivert’s case.

The case is Sendy Enivert v. Progressive Select Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 14-CV-80279-Ryskamp/Hopkins (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2014). Click on the link to read the court ruling.

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law, Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2012)

Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Robbins v. Garrison P & C

On July 18, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a case in which the plaintiff challenged reimbursement under the amended statute’s “emergency medical condition” (“EMC”) provision.

Glenaan Robbins sued her auto insurer, Garrison P&C Insurance Co., alleging that Garrison violated the 2013 provision of Florida’s PIP law that limits PIP benefits depending on a determination of whether or not the claimant suffered an emergency medical condition.

Robbins sustained injuries in an April 2013 car accident. She was treated for her injuries and alleged that ultimately “no determination was made that she did not have an emergency medical condition.” When Robbins submitted her claim to her insurer Garrison, Garrison limited her reimbursement to $2,500.

FL PIP law requires that an insurance company must reimburse its injured insured up to $10,000 if certain medical providers determine that the injured person had an emergency medical condition. Reimbursement is limited to $2,500 if a provider determines that the injured person did not have an emergency medical condition.

In this case, no determination was made either way that an emergency medical condition did or did not exist. Plaintiff Robbins argued that where there has been no such determination, insurance companies must reimburse medical expenses up to $10,000. In other words, unless a determination of no emergency medical condition is made, the plaintiff is entitled to the higher amount.

Reviewing the language of the statute and legislative intent, however, the court concluded that Robbins’ argument had no merit. Rather, where there has been no determination of an emergency medical condition made, PIP medical benefits are not to exceed $2,500. Thus, contrary to Robbins’ argument, the conclusion of the court was that unless there is a determination of an emergency condition, the reimbursement is limited to $2,500.

The court therefore held that Robbins had failed to allege a statutory claim and her case was dismissed.

The case is Glenaan Robbins v. Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 13-81259-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2014). Click on the link to read the court ruling.

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law, Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2012)

Fraud Charges Filed in West Palm Beach False Insurance Claim Case

The fact that Frank Assouman was not even in his truck at the time it was hit in a Boca Raton parking lot did not stop him from filing more than $25,000 in false insurance claims.

The crash report and a witness statement taken at the time of the accident indicate that the West Palm Beach resident was not in his parked vehicle when it was struck by another driver. Damage to Assouman’s vehicle was estimated at $1,500.

Days later he sought medical care, including an MRI at Delray Diagnostics and other treatment obtained from Modern Medicine, Inc.

In addition to filing a claim for property damage, Assouman reportedly filed a $21,815 injury claim with State Farm and a $3,035 claim with his own carrier of Windhaven Insurance.  Both claims were denied.

The Florida Division of Insurance Fraud filed a fraud charge against Assouman for less than $20,000.

Comments Off

Filed under Insurance Fraud

State Farm Granted Summary Judgment in Lake Worth Chiropractic PIP Benefits Case

On July 14, 2014, the 15th Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County affirmed a lower court decision granting summary judgment to State Farm in a claim for PIP benefits brought by Lake Worth Emergency Chiropractic Center.

In the underlying case, Judge Bosso-Pardo granted defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, entering final judgment for the defendant, State Farm, upon finding that the pre-suit demand letter, required by Florida Statute 627.736(10) (2010), was insufficient in that it demanded payment for services that were never billed to State Farm.

Judge Bosso-Pardo found that the Plaintiff’s “withdrawing” the unbilled service after suit had commenced was insufficient to cure the defect and that the demand letter requirements under Florida Statute 627.736(10) must be strictly construed and adhered to by those seeking to initiate litigation against a Florida PIP insurer.

The Circuit Court affirmed this decision, concluding that section 627.736(10) requires strict compliance and that, in this case, the demand letter did not strictly comply with the PIP statute requirements. As such, Lake Worth Emergency Chiropractic Center failed to satisfy the condition precedent to filing its law suit, and the trial court was correct in awarding final summary judgment in favor of State Farm.

The case is Lake Worth Emergency Chiropractic Center v. State Farm, in the Fifteenth Judicial Court for Palm Beach County, Case No. 502012AP000034XXXXMB. Click on the link to read the court opinion.

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law, Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2008)

Vehicular Arson Cases Climbing Nationwide

The slow economy could be contributing to an increase in claims involving auto fires, according to an official with the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

“Common sense tells you that more desperate people will take more desperate measures to get themselves out of trouble,” said Coalition representative James Quiggle in a News 4 I-Team report.

Cracking the case on vehicular arson is difficult to prove in court, as Maryland officials are discovering. Of more than 2,000 suspected auto arsons in the state during 2013, fewer than 50 cases had sufficient evidence to turn the matter over to prosecutors.

Findings from a 2009 report of the U.S. Fire Administration’s (USFA’s) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) reveal the following:

  • Approximately 10 percent of all vehicle fires are intentionally set.
  • Intentional vehicle fires are at their highest during the summer, with a July peak.
  • Matches are the leading heat source (20 percent) of intentionally set vehicle fires.
  • Vehicle seats (34 percent) and uncontained fuel (14 percent) represent the starting point of many intentionally set vehicle fires.

Arson generally has a low clearance rate, according to crime reports from the U.S. Department of Justice. Arson involving motor vehicles, which represent 20 percent of all arson cases, have a particularly low closure rate of approximately 7.4 percent nationwide.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement statistics indicate that motor vehicle arson may not be a major concern in the state, with fewer than 300 cases of auto arson reported for 2012.

Comments Off

Filed under Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2008), Insurance Fraud

More Than Half of Florida PIP Claimants Hire an Attorney

PIP claimants are increasingly being represented by legal counsel, according to a new study released by the Insurance Research Council (“IRC”) titled Attorney Involvement in Auto Injury Claims.

In 2012, the study notes that 36 percent of auto injury PIP claimants nationwide were represented by attorneys, compared to 31 percent in 2007. For bodily injury claims, representation rose slightly to 50 percent.

Compared to claimants without legal representation, PIP claimants with attorneys were found to have a greater likelihood of the following behavior:

  • Sought more treatment in a pain clinic, including MRIs
  • Experienced longer waiting times for claim payments
  • Collected lower net payments
  • Involved in alleged fraudulent claims

Historical trends from 1977 to the present are outlined in the IRC chart below.

Attorney_Involvement_Fig 1_cr

Attorney involvement was also measured by state. Florida ranked at the top of the list, with more than 50% of claimants represented. Kansas, where 12% of PIP claimants are represented, was the lowest ranking state.

Data is drawn from 12 participating insurers and 35,000 auto injury claims closed with payment under the five principal passenger coverage areas, according to survey sponsors.

Click on the link to read more about the Attorney Involvement in Auto Injury Claims study.

Comments Off

Filed under Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2008)