Category Archives: FL Legislation

New Statute To Help Deflect Frivolous ADA Lawsuits

As reported in the Miami Herald, Florida lawmakers have implemented a new law aimed at ADA public accommodation compliance lawsuits often pressuring small businesses and property owners into quick settlements in order to avoid lengthy and costly court battles. In an analysis published in March by The News-Press (Fort Myers), of all the lawsuits filed under the ADA’s public accommodations law in Florida during the past five years, more than half of the approximately 6,000 suits were filed by just 12 plaintiffs. In addition, many of the plaintiffs are represented by the same law firms. The bill, receiving unanimous approval in both the Florida House and Senate during the 2017 legislative session, was recently signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott and is now in effect.

The new statute enables businesses and property owners to take substantive, preventative measures to help insulate themselves from the most frivolous claims. Under the law, a business or property owner may retain a qualified expert to conduct an inspection of their property to ensure compliance with building codes satisfying the ADA’s requirements. If the property is found to be in compliance with the ADA, the expert may issue a certificate of conformity that includes the date of inspection, proof of the expert’s qualifications, and a statement confirming that the property is in conformity. For properties that are not found to be in compliance, the owner may develop and submit a remediation plan approved by a qualified expert indicating that the property will be brought into conformity within a specified time period.

The compliance certifications or remediation plans may be filed with the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which will now maintain a publicly accessible website to serve as a registry for all of the certifications and remediation plans that it receives. Importantly, a remediation plan in existence before an ADA lawsuit is filed could serve to moot such a lawsuit.

The new law does not prohibit disabled plaintiffs from filing ADA public accommodations lawsuits, nor does it prohibit plaintiffs’ attorneys from seeking fees. It does, however, provide Florida businesses and property owners with a means to potentially defeat or limit frivolous ADA barrier-to-access lawsuits and greatly minimize their exposure to related attorney fees and costs.

Click here for the full article.

Comments Off on New Statute To Help Deflect Frivolous ADA Lawsuits

Filed under ADA, FL Legislation, Florida, Lawsuits

ROIG Attorneys Publish Ridesharing Article in Daily Business Review

ROIG Lawyers Attorneys Cecile S. Mendizabal and Lissette M. Alvarez published the article, “Ridesharing Legislation May Trigger New Wave of Litigation” in the Daily Business Review.

ROIG Lawyers Summer Law Clerk Yasbel Perez also contributed to the article.

Subscription required for full article.

Comments Off on ROIG Attorneys Publish Ridesharing Article in Daily Business Review

Filed under auto insurance, Claims Handling, FL Legislation, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Personal Injury Protection, PIP, PIP/No Fault, Ridesharing, Transportation Network Companies

Discount Plan Organization (DPO): What is it and why should we know?

A “Discount Medical Plan Organization” was created in 2004 and is now simply called a “Discount Plan Organization (DPO).”

What is it and why should we know?

It is like a concierge medical agreement where a patient pays a fee, for example, $1,500/year to get quick access to a specific doctor.  Usually, the DPO is the only way to access specific practitioners.  It does little more than grant access, some prophylactic treatment, and the practitioners are usually the patients’ primary care physician.  You may see these organizations providing post-accident services.

Let’s make sure we are not also paying for the DPO in disguise through administrative CPT’s. Click here for the Bill Analysis.

Summary:

Discount Medical Plan Organizations (DMPOs) offer discount medical plans, in exchange for fees, dues, charges, or other consideration, which provide access for plan members to providers of medical services and the right to receive medical services from those providers at a discount. The Legislature established the regulatory scheme for DMPOs in 2004, which includes licensure, forms and rate filings and approval, disclosure requirements, and penalties.

CS/HB 577 renames a “Discount Medical Plan” and a “Discount Medical Plan Organization” as a “Discount Plan” and a “Discount Plan Organization” (DPO), and makes extensive conforming changes to part II of ch. 636, F.S., to reflect the new names. The bill clarifies the definition of a “Discount Plan” to exclude any plan that does not charge a fee to members. The bill removes all rate and form filing and approval requirements for DPOs. To increase flexibility in marketing and reduce administrative barriers for DPOs, the bill:

  • Defines “first page”, upon which certain disclosures must appear, to mean the first page of any marketing material that first includes information describing benefits;
  • Allows DPOs to delegate functions to marketers and binds DPOs to the actions of those marketers within the scope of the delegation; and
  • Allows marketers and DPOs to commingle certain information on forms, advertisements, marketing materials, or brochures.

To maintain consumer protections for members and potential members of Discount Plans, the bill:

  • Changes the disclosure requirements by requiring acknowledgement and acceptance of the disclosures before enrollment and creating visibility and follow up requirements for disclosures made by electronic means or telephone;
  • Establishes new cancellation and reimbursement requirements for DPOs to disallow any charges beyond the effective cancellation date;
  • Requires pro rata reimbursement of charges paid by a member for the months beyond the effective cancellation date; and
  • Requires pro rata reimbursement for members who cancel during an open enrollment period, upon return of his or her discount card.

The bill does not have a fiscal impact on state or local government.

The bill became law on June 14, 2017, and is now Chapter 2017-112, Laws of Florida.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue in greater detail, please feel free to contact Dennis LaRosa (dlarosa@roiglawyers.com/850-264-6389) or any ROIG Lawyers attorney of your choice.

Comments Off on Discount Plan Organization (DPO): What is it and why should we know?

Filed under FL Legislation, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Defense

New Opinion Released Regarding Examinations Under Oath (EUOs)

A new opinion was recently released by the Florida 9th Circuit Court in its appellate capacity interpreting Fla. Stat. § 627.736(6)(g) and the timely scheduling of Examinations Under Oath (EUOs). This case reaffirms that as a general rule, an insurer ought to schedule the initial EUO in any claim under investigation to occur within 30 days of receipt of the first bill to ensure that the investigation is being conducted well within the time limits set forth in the PIP statute without obliging the insurer to issue a payment of the subject bill prior to investigation.

In Geico Indemnity Co. v. Central Florida Chiropractic Care a/a/o David Cherry (2016-CV-000038-A-O), Central Florida Chiropractic sued Geico for breach of contract for failure to pay overdue PIP benefits. Geico asserted as an affirmative defense that coverage was appropriately denied because the assignor failed to appear for two EUOs.

Central Florida Chiropractic contested Geico’s above-described defense because the EUOs were scheduled to occur more than 30 days after the date on which Central Florida Chiropractic had submitted the bills for the alleged charges at issue and, thus, the EUOs were unreasonably set to occur beyond the 30-day statutory period for payment of said bills. In fact, the Court noted, the first EUO request was not even sent until after 30 days had lapsed. Further, Geico had not informed the claimant pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.736(4)(i) that his claim was pending investigation.

The 9th Circuit ruled that even though attendance at an EUO is a condition precedent to receiving PIP benefits under Fla. Stat. § 627.736(6)(g), this provision “cannot be read in a vacuum.” The Court specifically looked to section (4)(b), which requires provider bills to be processed within 30 days of receipt, and to section (4)(i), which states that the claimant should be notified in writing within 30 days of filing the claim that an investigation is under way. Geico argued that section (4)(i) permits a 60-day extension of time for investigation beyond 30 days, but the Court pointed out that Geico failed to send any letter notifying the claimant of the investigation in this case, so the 30-day window was not extended.

The Court also explained that timely payment of the provider bills does not foreclose the insurer from investigating the claim. Nonetheless, “nothing in the statute additionally excuses the insurer’s potential breach for failure to pay a PIP claim within 30 days as contemplated by section 627.736(4)(b).”

Therefore, Geico could not enforce the EUO as condition precedent to receiving PIP benefits because by the time it had scheduled the EUOs, it was already in breach of the policy as the provider’s bills were not timely paid within 30 days. “[B]ecause Geico was already in breach of the insurance contract before the EUOs were scheduled to take place, [the assignor] was not obliged to submit to them.”

The Geico case is the latest in a long line of opinions and trial court orders, starting with Amador v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 748 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which holds that an EUO does not toll or extend the 30-day period within which an insurer must pay otherwise timely, compensable charges pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.736(4)(b). Courts have also ruled that the insurer does not comply with the 30-day requirement if it coordinates the EUO within 30 days, but the EUO is nonetheless scheduled to occur beyond the 30-day window. (See Micro-Diagnostics & South Florida Inst. of Medicina a/a/o Luz Solarte v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 248a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. App. 2004). In general, an insurer cannot defend claims on the basis of a claimant’s failure to attend an EUO if said EUO is scheduled to occur outside the 30-day period after submission of the medical bills. (See Humanitary Health Care, Inc. a/a/o Juan Esquivel v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 531b (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2005).

However, a Miami-Dade appellate court did find that an insurer may still benefit from the claimant’s failure to appear for an EUO if said EUO is initially scheduled to occur within 30 days, but then rescheduled for a later date at the claimant’s request. (See West Dixie Rehab. & Medical Ctr. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 16a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. App. 2002)).

The above cases make clear that any communications regarding the re-scheduling of an EUO ought to be done in writing, with language that clearly communicates that the change in date was done to accommodate the request of the insured or insured’s attorney. When appropriate, the insurer may send a letter to the claimant or claimant’s attorney pursuant to section (4)(i) advising that a claim is under investigation within 30 days of the claim filing. This will extend the time period within which an investigation may be conducted up to 90days after the submission of the claim, and thus allows additional time before any provider bills must be processed.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue in greater detail, please feel free to contact us.

ROIG Lawyers is a minority-owned litigation firm with a primary focus on Insurance Defense Litigation. We serve as primary counsel for numerous national and regional carriers and corporations related to all aspects of insurance litigation from 7 offices throughout the state of Florida. ROIG Lawyers does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information, and anyone’s review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. E-mail list/s from ROIG Lawyers are intended to provide information of general interest to the public and are not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. You should consult a lawyer with regard to specific legal issues that require attention.

Comments Off on New Opinion Released Regarding Examinations Under Oath (EUOs)

Filed under auto insurance, Case Law, Claims Handling, Examinations Under Oath (EUO), FL Legislation, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Personal Injury Protection, PIP, PIP/No Fault

New Amendments Affecting Anti-Fraud Investigative Units

The Legislature has passed some amendments that are likely to affect your SIUs. We have reviewed the new law and would like to provide you with a summary of some of the most important points.

Chapter 2017-178, Laws of Florida, primarily amended § 626.9891, Florida Statutes and went into effect June 26, 2017, when the Governor signed the bill. These amendments deal with insurer “anti-fraud investigative units.” There is very little, if anything, that must be done now other than learn the law and know what your responsibilities and timelines are.

Although you have an SIU to cover the main features of the law, some new reporting requirements and designation of an anti-fraud unit with at least 2 hours of initial anti-fraud education and 1 hour per year after that, will require all insurers “to investigate and report possible fraudulent insurance acts” to Florida government. The amendments to § 626.9891 [insurer anti-fraud investigative units; penalties for noncompliance], Florida Statutes, provide the who, what, how, when and where.

SUMMARY

*There is no legislative staff analysis of this law

By December 18, 2018, DIFS shall create best practices for the detection, investigation, prevention, and reporting of insurance fraud and other fraudulent insurance acts. The report must be updated as necessary but at least every 2 years. The report must contain specified criteria set forth in the section.

The Department of Financial Services is authorized to create rules for the administration this section. This is neither the Office of Insurance Regulation nor the Financial Services Commission (Governor and selected cabinet).

While there are compliance dates for insurers and agencies, the bill became effective upon becoming a law on June 26, 2017. By December 31, 2017, each insurer must:

  • If not in-house, contract with others to provide anti-fraud services
  • Adopt anti-fraud plan (discussed below)
  • Designate at least one employee to provide these services
  • Electronically submit reports of anti-fraud plan with the name and contact information of designated person to DIFS
  • The additional cost to the insurer for compliance may be added as an administrative expense in rate requests

Each anti-fraud plan shall include:

  • Procedures for mandatory reporting of insurance fraud
  • Acknowledgement that the insurer provides education and training required by section
  • Description of anti-fraud education and training
  • Description or flow chart of anti-fraud unit
  • Rationale and justification for level of staffing and resources used by anti-fraud unit based upon specified criteria

By December 31, 2018, each insurer shall provide staff of the anti-fraud investigative unit at least 2 hours of initial anti-fraud training that is designed to assist in identifying and evaluating instances of suspected fraudulent insurance acts in underwriting or claims activities.

Annually, after the initial training, an insurer must provide such employees a 1-hour course that addresses detection, referral, investigation, and reporting of possible fraudulent insurance acts for the types of insurance lines written by the insurer.

The insurer shall report to DIFS specified information by December 19, 2019, and annually thereafter for each line carried:

  • Number of policies in effect
  • Amount of premiums written
  • Number of claims received
  • Number of claims referred to anti-fraud unit
  • Number of fraud related matters referred to anti-fraud unit that were not claim related
  • Number of cases referred to DIFS
  • Number of case referred to other LE agencies
  • Number of cases referred to other agencies
  • Estimated dollar exposure submitted to DIFS or other agencies

In addition to reporting for all lines, workers compensation lines shall also report by December 19, 2019, the following information:

*This is a decrease in the amount of information currently required for workers compensation fraud before the amendment

  • Estimated dollar amount lost due to workers comp fraud]
  • Estimated dollar amount recovered attributed to workers comp fraud for several designated criteria
  • Number of workers comp fraud cases referred to DIFS for several designated criteria

Creating § 626.9896 Dedicated insurance fraud prosecutors:

  • DFS shall collect specified data from each state attorney who has designated attorneys and paralegals exclusively for the prosecution of insurance fraud.  [criteria omitted]
  • DIFS shall report the data to the house and senate leaders by September 1, 2018, and annually after that.

Other provisions not discussed; viatical contracts; HMO anti-fraud unit requirements; stranger-originated insurance policies are now statutorily considered void and unenforceable; an insurer may opt out of preinsurance inspection of private motor vehicles.  Preinsurance inspection reports of DIFS are eliminated.

 

These are the highlights of the bill as it applies to automobile insurance.  It does affect other lines as mentioned and we would be happy to explain the law in greater detail should you request it. If you have any questions, suggestions or reservations, please do not hesitate to contact us so that we may assist you in not only understanding the new law but how it ought to be implemented and when.

Comments Off on New Amendments Affecting Anti-Fraud Investigative Units

Filed under FL Legislation, Florida, Florida Division of Insurance Fraud, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Insurance Fraud

Relocation For Military Personnel Might Be An Order, But What About Vehicle Registration and Insurance?

During holidays such as Memorial Day and Independence Day, our nation pays tribute to all of our men and women, both past and present, serving in the Armed Forces. We look forward to celebrating with family and friends as we honor our military personnel and their service to this Country.

One of the things military personnel are likely to endure is moving their homes and bouncing around the Country or overseas to do their duty. These individuals often own motor vehicles and drive them across state lines to where they are newly stationed. Others are overseas for months, if not years, and have motor vehicles back at home that are not being used and are often garaged until their owners return.

So is a member of the military who is a Florida resident responsible for maintaining the registration and minimal automobile insurance on their vehicle when they are stationed out of the Country?

The answer to that is no, but be careful. Florida law makes an owner or registrant of a motor vehicle exempt from such registration and insurance requirements if a member of the United State Armed Forces is called to or on active duty outside the United States in an emergency situation. The exemption applies only as long as the member of the Armed Forces is on active duty outside the United States and applies only while the vehicle covered by the security required under Florida law is not operated by any person. However, the military insured must make a written request for this exemption and the insurer shall cancel the coverages and return any unearned premium or suspend the security required.

What does this mean? Well, the subject motor vehicle cannot be driven on the roads and highways of Florida during the time this exemption is in place. As such, if that military insured has leave and comes back to Florida, then they cannot operate that vehicle unless they renew the minimum insurance and their registration, if expired. Additionally, other individuals cannot drive that vehicle when that military insured is deployed. This can get tricky due to the fact that the worst thing that can happen to a motor vehicle is letting it sit idle for a long period of time. This can cause condensation in the fuel, carburetor issues, flat tires and other mechanical problems.

To be safe, advise everyone you know that may have access to the vehicle that it cannot be operated on the streets or highways of Florida until it is re-registered and insured. Putting a lock on the vehicle’s steering wheel or a note in the window as a reminder may also be a good practice. This does not mean you cannot start the vehicle and let it idle, it just means you cannot take it out for a drive. If you do, the driver/owner of the vehicle would become self-insured and could possibly be cited for failure to have the required insurance on the vehicle. Sorry neighbors, no favors to borrow the car for a quick trip to the market… That run for milk can leave the vehicle owner in a stale situation.

Now Florida residents are generally required every year to renew the registration on their vehicles.

However, is a member of the Armed Forces, who is a resident of another State and is ordered to be stationed in Florida, required to register their personal vehicle in Florida and maintain the minimum Florida insurance on that vehicle if they want to drive that vehicle on the roads and highways of Florida?

The answer is no. Any motor vehicle or mobile home owned by, and operated exclusively for the personal use of, any member of the United States Armed Forces who is not a resident of Florida and who is stationed in Florida while in compliance with military or naval orders, are exempt from registering and insuring their personal vehicle in Florida during that time as long as it is registered and insured in accordance with the laws of their home State.

Now the military insured may want to renew their registration and obtain the minimum Florida insurance if they know that they will be stationed in Florida for a long period of time. However, they are not required to do so as long as they have military orders keeping them stationed in Florida. Consequently, this means that the military insured will only get the benefit of the coverage’s that are available under their insurance policy and would not qualify for additional Florida Personal Injury Protection coverage benefits if they are in a motor vehicle accident in the State.

There are certain insurers that cater to the Armed Forces personnel. However, there are other insurance options for these individuals based on the competition between insurers. Thus, insurance agents and adjusters should become knowledgeable about the insurance exemptions provided to the Armed Forces personnel so to better service these special clients.

This article is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information, and anyone’s review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. The content provided is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. You should consult a lawyer with regard to specific legal issues that require attention.

For additional information, please contact Stephen Mellor of Roig Lawyers at 954-354-1541 or by email at smellor@roiglawyers.com. Stephen G. Mellor is a partner in the Deerfield Beach office of Roig Lawyers who primarily focuses on out-of-state policy claims for insurance carriers. 

Comments Off on Relocation For Military Personnel Might Be An Order, But What About Vehicle Registration and Insurance?

Filed under auto insurance, FL Legislation, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense

Updates to Florida’s Fictitious Name Statute

We get questions regarding the Fictitious Name Statute from many of you fairly often. The legislature has made some changes to the Fictitious Name Statute that closes holes, but quite possibly opens some new ones. Whether this creates a private cause of action to enforce the new provisions (affirmative litigation) is to be seen. However, it may provide a defense. Click here for the Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement.

A summary of the new changes can be found below. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue in greater detail, please feel free to contact ROIG Lawyers Healthcare Policy Advisor Dennis LaRosa at dlarosa@roiglawyers.com or (850) 264-6389.

CS/CS/SB 346 updates the Florida Fictitious Name Act, s. 865.09, F.S., which requires any person or business entity doing business in Florida under a name other than their legal name to register a fictitious name with the Division of Corporations of the Department of State. Specifically, the bill:

  • Defines the term “registrant” to clarify and standardize who is required to file a fictitious name;
  • Clarifies that foreign business entities must be in active status with the Division of Corporations to file a fictitious name;
  • Updates the process for cancellation, registration, and renewal of a fictitious name, including clarifying the term of registration;
  • Standardizes language to include varied business entities, rather than just corporations;
  • Changes the penalty for failure to comply with the Fictitious Name Act from a misdemeanor to a noncriminal violation; and
  • Makes technical and conforming changes throughout.

The bill takes effect on July 1, 2017.

Click here for the Amended Bill.

ROIG Lawyers is a minority-owned litigation firm with a primary focus on Insurance Defense Litigation. We serve as primary counsel for numerous national and regional carriers and corporations related to all aspects of insurance litigation. ROIG Lawyers does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information, and anyone’s review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. You should consult a lawyer with regard to specific legal issues that require attention.

Comments Off on Updates to Florida’s Fictitious Name Statute

Filed under FL Legislation, Florida, Florida Fictitious Name Act

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Retroactively Applies Allstate PIP Decision

According to Law360, on Wednesday, April 19th Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal retroactively applied a state Supreme Court decision involving Allstate Insurance Co.’s personal injury protection policy language regarding the use of the Medicare fee schedules, overriding a lower court’s ruling and handing Allstate the win. After denying the insurer’s request for review of a circuit court appellate division’s ruling in favor of medical provider Hallandale Open MRI LLC last September, the court reversed course, applying the Supreme Court’s January decision in Allstate v. Orthopedic Specialists.

Click here to read the full article (subscription required).

Comments Off on Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Retroactively Applies Allstate PIP Decision

Filed under auto insurance, Case Law, FL Legislation, Florida, Insurance, PIP, PIP/No Fault

Chiropractor’s Challenge To ‘PIP’ Law Kicked Back By Appeals Court

In a 14-page ruling on Wednesday, February 15th, the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld part of a 2012 overhaul of the state’s personal-injury protection auto insurance system that limits No-Fault (Personal Injury Protection) benefits to $2,500 for individuals who were not diagnosed with an emergency medical condition. The appeals court overturned a judge’s decision in a Miami-Dade County court citing arguments that the 2012 law overhaul was intended to help prevent fraud in the PIP insurance system, but was unconstitutional.

The ruling was in response to chiropractor Eduardo Garrido’s legal victory against Progressive American Insurance Company. Garrido was seeking a determination that the insurer should pay up to the policy limit of $10,000 in the absence of diagnosis that the patient suffered an emergency medical condition as the result of an automobile accident. He also challenged that it was unconstitutional to bar chiropractors from being able to diagnose patients with having suffered an emergency medical condition. The chiropractor treated a patient after an accident in 2013 and submitted invoices to Progressive who only paid $2,500 of the $6,075 billed. According to Progressive, there had been no determination, other than Dr. Garrido’s, a chiropractor, that the patient suffered an emergency medical condition.

Click here to view the full story.

Comments Off on Chiropractor’s Challenge To ‘PIP’ Law Kicked Back By Appeals Court

Filed under FL Legislation, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Miami-Dade County, Personal Injury Protection, PIP/No Fault

Florida Supreme Court Allstate Fee Schedule Litigation: Shall We Read The Tea Leaves?

The Florida Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Allstate Insurance Company v. Orthopedic Specialists, No. SC15-2298. At issue was an appeal of a ruling that it wrongfully limited its reimbursements under Medicare fee schedules for motorists’ personal injury protection (PIP) claims.

Allstate’s policy language has been found to be exceedingly clear and concise by the majority of appellate courts across the state. A ruling affirming the Fourth District Court of Appeals decision would only serve to blindside Florida’s citizens with additional bills for costly co-payments while also limiting the amount of coverage available to them.

While we wait for a final opinion, industry professionals have been closely watching the court for any and all clues. Politics of the high court aside, what “shall” we analyze to determine how the justices will rule?

One such clue seems to be overlooked, yet is hiding in plain sight. On the very day that the court heard oral argument in Allstate v. Orthopedic Specialists the court issued a Per Curiam Opinion amending the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in which the word “shall” was stricken over 200 times. See In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure No. SC16-155. Ironically and perhaps persuasively, the court writes unanimously that “[t]he amendments shall become effective January 1, 2017, at 12:01 a.m.” (emphasis mine.)

More recently, numerous Per Curiam Opinions amending various procedural and administrative rules have been issued. They have seen the court continue to favor “shall”. Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Appellate Procedure, Code of Judicial Conduct and Small Claims Rules did not remove any “shall” provisions.

Pouring over minor amendments by the high court with no clear answer, perhaps we are left to channel Judge May’s epic dissent in the Fourth District Court of Appeals Opinion in which she found Allstate’s policy language to be unambiguous and compliant. While accusing the medical providers of leading the majority down the yellow brick road she writes frustratingly, “As the Pope once asked Michelangelo during the painting of the Sistine Chapel: “When will there be an end?”

We “shall” know soon.

Comments Off on Florida Supreme Court Allstate Fee Schedule Litigation: Shall We Read The Tea Leaves?

Filed under Auto Insurance Fraud, FL Legislation, Florida, Florida Supreme Court, Fourth District Court of Appeals, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Personal Injury Protection