STANDUP MRI OF MIAMI, Plaintiff, verses MERCURY INDEMNITY CO. OF FLORIDA
Insurance Personal injury protection Coverage Medical expenses By using confusing language providing for payment of 80% of reasonable expenses while also referencing “other payment guidelines in No Fault Law,” “any schedule and limitations under federal or state law for medical expenses,” and “various sources of information” to determine if medical expense is “reasonable,” insurer failed to satisfy requirement that election to use permissive statutory fee schedule be made in manner so that insured and medical providers would be aware of it
STANDUP MRI OF MIAMI a/a/o Olga Quinones, Plaintiff, v. MERCURY INDEMNITY CO. OF FLORIDA, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 12 23011COCE (55). July 23, 2013. Sharon L. Zeller, Judge. Counsel: Ross Abramowitz, Shuster and Saben, LCC., Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Louis Shulman, Dutton Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF
THIS CAUSE having come before the court on Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Disposition or Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having considered the Motions, reviewed the court file, relevant legal authorities, being apprised of the joint stipulation between the parties that permits a final judgment in favor of Plaintiff upon the granting of Summary Judgment in Plaintiff's favor and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the court finds as follows:
This case involves competing interpretations of a PIP insurance policy. Plaintiff's interpretation would result in Defendant having to pay more on the medical bill submitted, and Defendant's interpretation would result in a finding that the lesser amount it paid complied with the policy.