Tag Archives: PIP insurance

Driving in Florida May Be Hazardous to Your Wallet, New Study Finds

You don’t want to have a car accident in Florida, according to a new study released by WalletHub last week. Their numbers ranked states on how ‘safe’ it is for drivers’ finances after an accident. The study placed Florida dead last among 50 states and the District of Columbia—which means driving in the Sunshine State can be risky to your wallet.

In producing the rankings, WalletHub looked at whether drivers had insurance and whether that insurance would be enough to cover the damages in the event of a car accident. They found significant differences between states. Specifically, the study took into account available car liability insurance to protect others, other forms of required insurance to protect drivers, and the percentage of uninsured drivers in each state.

When those three factors come together, Florida holds the dubious distinction of being the “worst state to get into a car crash,” WalletHub says. Here’s why:

  1. Insurance requirements in Florida are lower than in most other states. Florida drivers are only required to carry minimum liability coverage of $10,000 per person. The amount goes up to a $20,000 minimum for accidents involving multiple parties. By comparison, Maine and Alaska—the states ranked highest—both require $50,000 in coverage up to two people and $25,000 in property damage insurance, according to WalletHub.
  2. A high percentage of Florida drivers are uninsured. According to the study, 23.8 percent of drivers carry no auto insurance. Florida is only surpassed by Oklahoma, which has 25.9 percent uninsured drivers on the road. The best state where drivers have coverage is Massachusetts—only 3.9 percent of their drivers are uninsured
  3. Florida does not require additional forms of insurance coverage to protect drivers. Although Florida does require personal injury protection (PIP) coverage, the state does not require medical payment coverage or uninsured motorist coverage for bodily injuries or personal damage.

What can Florida drivers do? Experts recommend spending a few extra dollars to add uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to your auto insurance policy to offer protection.

Comments Off

Filed under Insurance Fraud

11th Circuit Appellate Division Rules Insurer’s Adjuster Notes not Discoverable

On January 5, 2015, the Appellate Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County issued a ruling reversing the lower court’s order compelling production of the insurer’s pre-litigation documents.  The court held that such documents are not discoverable in a first-party coverage lawsuit between the insured and the insurer.

In 2011, respondent Yesenia Romero sued State Farm for PIP benefits, alleging State Farm breached the insurance contract and violated the Florida PIP statute in not paying for claims resulting from a 2009 motor vehicle accident. Romero filed a request for State Farm’s “entire claims file concerning the case,” including all of the adjuster’s notes made prior to the pre-suit demand letter.  State Farm objected to the production, asserting work-product privilege.

A hearing on the issue was held in the trial court.  Following an in camera inspection of the adjuster’s notes, the judge determined that they were not protected under the work-product doctrine because they were not prepared in anticipation of litigation.  The court ordered State Farm to produce all the adjuster’s notes.  State Farm sought to have the appellate division quash the order.

In its analysis, the appellate division noted that all three levels of Florida’s judiciary, including its own court, have said that an insurance company’s claims file documents are not discoverable in a first-party coverage and damages lawsuit between an insurer and the insured. The court cited a Third District case, Castle Key v. Benitez, in concluding that “where the insured is not seeking a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract,” the insurer’s claims file documents are not discoverable.

In this case, where the plaintiff was alleging breach of contract and not bad faith, the appellate division determined that the trial court erred in ordering State Farm to produce the documents and therefore quashed the trials court’s order.

State Farm v. Yesenia Romero, Case No. 13-48 AP (Fla. 11th Circuit January 5, 2015).

Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Comments Off

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

Appellate Court Rules that Two Providers Not “Prevailing Insureds”

A trial court ruling awarding attorney’s fees to two medical treatment providers was reversed by the Appellate Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County in an opinion filed January 9, 2015. The court concluded that the providers did not constitute “prevailing insureds” and therefore were not entitled to the statutory award of attorney’s fees.

Fritznel Leconte was allegedly injured in an automobile accident on July 22, 2006, while insured by a PIP insurance policy issued by United Automobile Insurance Co. He received treatment from two providers—A Rehab Associates and Med Plus Centers—and assigned his PIP claims to them. The cases were tried separately and consolidated on appeal.

In response to a pre-suit statutory Demand Letter, United determined it was responsible only for the cost of the pre-IME (Independent Medical Exam) treatments and offered A Rehab $595.20 and Med Plus $1,324.80. At trial, verdicts were returned in favor of the providers for the exact amounts offered earlier by United.

The providers filed motions for attorney’s fees as “prevailing insureds” pursuant to Florida Statutes section 627.428. That statute grants an insured the right to recover attorney’s fees when the insured obtains a judgment or decree against the insurer, i.e., is a “prevailing insured.” The question before the court was whether an insured is a “prevailing insured” when it obtains a judgment no better than the amount offered by the insurer pre-suit.

The court held that the “prevailing insured” referred to in the statute is “one who has obtained a judgment greater than any offer of settlement tendered by the insurer.” Put another way, “insureds who rejects settlement offers that would make them whole cannot seek attorney’s fees under section 627.428.”

In this case, the judgments received were not greater than the amount offered by the insurer prior to the suit, so the insureds do not qualify as “prevailing insureds” and are not entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 627.428.

United Automobile Ins. Co. v. A Rehab Assoc. and United Automobile Ins. Co. v. Med Plus Centers, Case Nos. 12-413 AP, 13-148 AP, 12-381 AP, 13-147 AP (Fla. 11th Cir. January 9, 2015).

Click on the link to access the court ruling.

Comments Off

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

Legislators Unlikely to Change Florida’s No-Fault Auto Insurance Law Right Now

Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater wants Florida’s legislators to continue to be patient before considering any rash actions that would change personal injury protection (PIP) coverage in the state. That’s because a recent report released by the state Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) shows that increases in fraudulent PIP claims have basically been stopped.

The Florida Department of Financial Services is attributing these results to the passage HB 119, effective January 1, 2013, which created some exclusions for coverage under PIP insurance and limited for non-emergency conditions. The amended No-Fault Law excluded PIP reimbursements to massage therapists and acupuncturists, and also required individuals involved in car crashes to seek treatment within 14 days of a motor vehicle accident. PIP allows up to $10,000 in benefits for emergency medical conditions, but places a $2,500 cap on non-emergency conditions. It is mandatory for all Florida drivers to carry PIP.

According to a story in the Sun-Sentinel on January 7, the law set benchmarks for insurance carriers to lower rates. The OIR report showed that from 2011 through September 2014, the average medical cost paid through PIP claims dropped 14 percent statewide.  In South Florida, a hotspot of fraudulent PIP activity, the average payment decreased 28.7 percent, the article reported.

However, it is thought that these numbers are too preliminary and do not show the full impact of the law, yet.

House Insurance & Banking Chairman John Wood, R-Winter Haven, noted in the article that he would be “surprised if there was ‘major’ PIP legislation before the issue is settled in court.”

Senate Banking and Insurance Chairwoman Lizbeth Benacquisto, R-Fort Myers, said that she is still reviewing the OIR report, and likes to ensure that if changes are made, they have “a very positive effect on policyholders and our constituents.”

The annual legislative session begins in March.

Comments Off

Filed under Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2012), Insurance Fraud

Mario Rene Ruiz added to Florida Division of Insurance Fraud’s Most Wanted Fugitive List

A post on our December 1st FL-PIP Guide reported that five individuals were arrested for their roles in an alleged staged accident scam in 2012 that resulted in fraudulent Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims costing three insurance carriers almost $40,000.  The five cases will be prosecuted by the Broward State Attorney’s Office.

A sixth individual wanted in connection with this crime—Mario Rene Ruiz—has yet to be apprehended and is now considered a “Most Wanted Fugitive” for insurance fraud, the Division of Insurance Fraud (DIF) announced.

According to DIF, Ruiz has lived in Fort Lauderdale but may have returned to Honduras, his native country. The 32-year old reportedly measures 5’6” in height, weighs 152 lbs., and has brown eyes and hair.

Anyone with information regarding Mario Ruiz’s whereabouts is asked to contact DIF at 1-800-378-0445 or the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.  Tipsters can remain anonymous and may be eligible for a reward as part of the Florida Department of Financial Services’ Anti-Fraud Reward Program.

To date, the department has awarded almost $349,000 to nearly 60 citizens as part of its Anti-Fraud Reward Program, which rewards individuals up to $25,000 for information that directly leads to an arrest and conviction in an insurance fraud scheme.

Comments Off

Filed under Insurance Fraud

Third DCA Rules for Insurer in GEICO v. Gables Insurance Recovery

In an opinion issued December 10, 2014 in the case of GEICO v. Gables Insurance Recovery (a/a/o Rita M. Lauzan), the Third District Court of Appeal quashed a Circuit Court Appellate Division’s decision affirming final judgment in favor of Gables Insurance.

Lauzan, who was insured by GEICO, was injured in an automobile accident in 2008. After obtaining medical treatment, she assigned her GEICO policy benefits to All X-Ray Diagnostic Services, which subsequently assigned the benefits to Gables Insurance.

GEICO paid less than the amount it had been billed, and Gables Insurance filed a breach of contract action against GEICO. GEICO argued that Lauzan’s $10,000 PIP benefits had been exhausted and that it therefore had no further liability to Gables.

Deciding in GEICO’s favor, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the PIP statute does not require an insurer to pay more than the $10,000 limit in PIP coverage. Further, it does not require an insurer to “set aside” funds in anticipation of litigation. The Court noted that two other District Courts of Appeal have addressed the issue, holding that a showing of bad faith or impropriety on the part of the insurer is required before it can be held liable for benefits above the statutory limit.

Quoting a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal case, Northwoods v. State Farm, the Court concluded that once PIP benefits are exhausted, “an insurer has no further liability on unresolved, pending claims, absent bad faith in the handling of the claim by the insurance company.”

The case is GEICO Indemnity Co. v. Gables Insurance Recovery (a/a/o Rita M. Lauzan), Case No. 3D13-2264 (Fla. 3rd DCA, December 10, 2014). Click on the link to read the court opinion.

The case cited is Northwoods Sports Medicine v. State Farm, 137 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Comments Off

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

Third DCA Upholds Ruling in PIP Case Millennium Radiology v. State Farm

On December 10, 2014, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court ruling in Millennium Radiology (a/a/o Yesenia Arango) v. State Farm. In the case, Yesenia Arango’s $10,000 PIP policy limits were exhausted after a lawsuit was filed and served on State Farm by Millennium Radiology.

Roig Lawyers attorney Mark Rose had successfully argued in the lower court that paying out the entire $10,000 was a complete bar to additional claims against the policy of insurance, absent bad faith on the insurer’s part or the insurer’s payment of untimely submitted bills. Following the ruling, the case was certified as a question of great public importance to the Third District Court of Appeal.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling, finding that in an action brought by an assignor of PIP benefits that is founded upon a breach of contract, exhaustion of PIP benefits after a lawsuit is filed “absolves the insurer from any responsibility to pay an otherwise valid claim” where the exhaustion occurred (1) after the insurer paid an amount less than the provider feels was appropriate; (2) after a lawsuit has been served on the insurer; and (3) absent any bad faith by the insurer in the handling of the claims.

The case is Millennium Radiology v. State Farm, Case No. 3D12-3143 (Fla. 3rd DCA, December 10, 2014). Click on the link to view the court ruling.

Comments Off

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