Category Archives: Insurance Defense

Appeal Court Backed Air Ambulance Firm in PIP Dispute

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed air-ambulance firm Air Methods Corp. in a dispute stemming from a traffic accident that resulted in the death of accident victim Lemar Bailey about whether the amount paid for helicopter services should be limited by Florida’s no-fault auto insurance law. The federal appeals court ruled that the air-ambulance firm is considered an air carrier under federal law and should be able to bill the child’s father, Lenworth Bailey, for costs that exceeded the limits in the state’s no-fault system.

Following the March 2013 accident, Air Methods Corp. billed $27,975 for its services. Bailey’s auto insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., paid $6,911 under the fee schedule. His health insurer, Aetna Life Insurance Co. paid another $3,681. However, Bailey did not pay the remaining balance of nearly $17,400. He filed a potential class-action lawsuit alleging that the air ambulance company was trying to improperly collect amounts in excess of the fee schedule. However, the judge ruled in favor of the Air Method, which led Bailey to the appeals court that also rejected such arguments.

Click here to view the full article.

Comments Off on Appeal Court Backed Air Ambulance Firm in PIP Dispute

Filed under auto insurance, FL Legislation, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Lawsuits, Personal Injury Protection, PIP, PIP/No Fault

Roig Lawyers Partner Keith Hernandez Publishes Article in CLM Magazine on Autonomous Vehicle Technologies and its Impact on Insurance

ROIG Lawyers Deerfield Partner Keith Hernandez has published an article in CLM Magazine entitled “Keep Your Eyes Off the Road.” In the article, Keith discusses the emergence of autonomous vehicle technologies and its impact on traditional insurance.

Click here to read the entire article.

CLM Magazine is the premier source for content that addresses trends, topics of interest, and industry challenges for those in the claims and litigation management industry.

Comments Off on Roig Lawyers Partner Keith Hernandez Publishes Article in CLM Magazine on Autonomous Vehicle Technologies and its Impact on Insurance

Filed under auto insurance, Autonomous Technology, Claims Handling, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Insurance Fraud, PIP/No Fault, Uncategorized

UPDATE – Pilot Theodore R. Wright III Pleads Guilty to Insurance Fraud

UPDATE – Pilot Theodore R. Wright III Pleads Guilty to Insurance Fraud

According to KLTV 7 of Texas, Theodore R. Wright III, the well-known pilot who survived a 2012 Gulf of Mexico crash and used an iPad to record his time in the water, has pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and conspiring to commit arson. Wright and three others also pleaded guilty to buying, over-insuring and ultimately destroying planes, boats, and cars to collect cash.

In May 2017, the Wright and his co-conspirators, Shane Gordon, Raymond Fosdick, and Edward Delima were charged with using fire to commit a felony and aiding and abetting, arson of property used in interstate or foreign commerce or used in an activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud.

Click here to view the full story.

Comments Off on UPDATE – Pilot Theodore R. Wright III Pleads Guilty to Insurance Fraud

Filed under Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Insurance Fraud

Attorney Fee Multipliers in PIP and the Search for a Guiding Lodestar

In October 2017, the Supreme Court again addressed the issue of contingency fee multipliers to awards of attorneys’ fees. Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Plaintiff attorneys felt a tinge of delight and perhaps delayed buying their lottery tickets in hopes that this new decision will help them win an attorney fee multiplier if they prevail in a PIP suit. While HB 119 in 2012 eliminated multipliers from newer PIP lawsuits, there are still many older cases that are now being resolved which face the possibility of large awards of attorney fees going to Plaintiff attorneys. Additionally, there is no penalty for a Plaintiff attorney to attempt to pursue a multiplier, thus the key question is how to best defend against this potential windfall.

To understand the new decision in Joyce v. Federated Nat’l Ins. Co., 2017 Fla. LEXIS 2070 (Fla. 2017), it is beneficial to look back at the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of how and when to award a multiplier. The seminal decision regarding the applicability of multipliers is still the Quanstrom decision from 1990. Specifically, the requirements under Quanstrom necessary to find a fee multiplier are:

  1. Whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel.
  2. Whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of non-payment in any way.
  3. Whether any of the factors set forth in Rowe are applicable, especially, the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attorney and his client. Id. at 834.

Joyce re-iterates that a market inquiry as to whether a multiplier was necessary to obtain competent counsel is the primary factor under the Quanstrom[1] requirements. This is important to PIP litigation since there are few, if any, potential PIP lawsuits that cannot find a warm and welcoming PIP attorney eager and willing to take the case.

Interestingly, the Florida Supreme Court in Joyce noted that the United States Supreme Court in 1992 revisited the issue of contingency fee multipliers in Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992), concluding that “enhancements for contingency [was] not permitted under the fee-shifting statutes at issue…[and] Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, reasoned that enhancement for contingency would likely duplicate in substantial part factors already subsumed in the lodestar.” Joyce. at 17, citing Dague at 567.

Under Joyce, the Florida Supreme Court separated itself from this federal precedent and continued to allow the use of multipliers under Florida law. The fear was that without the possibility of contingency multipliers some individuals with meritorious claims would fail to obtain competent counsel and the Florida Supreme Court noted “their usefulness in helping parties secure legal representation and their importance in ensuring access to Courts.” Id. at 17-18 citing Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., Inc., 734 So.2d 403, 411 (Fla. 1999). In other words, the Florida Supreme Court was concerned that Justice Scalia failed to consider that without a potential multiplier there is a danger of never obtaining competent counsel. Id. at 25. But with the thousands of PIP lawsuits being filed every year, can a Plaintiff truly make an argument that finding a PIP attorney is difficult?

Under Joyce, it appears that contingency fee multipliers are alive and well under Florida Law, and there are some circumstances where they are certainly warranted. Paradoxically, the best argument against the applicability of multipliers to the majority of PIP lawsuits comes from the Joyce opinion itself. The majority opinion which intentionally diverged from federal precedent on multipliers in order to preserve access to courts appears to have absolutely no concern about whether prohibiting multipliers in PIP lawsuits somehow prevents individuals from obtaining fair access to courts or diminishes one’s ability to obtain competent counsel. The dissent also argues that PIP litigation suffered no decrease in volume after HB 119 and that there was no negative impact on an insured’s ability to obtain counsel in PIP cases. Id. at 40-41. The dissent even cites the Plaintiff’s own expert testimony that there is no lack of attorneys willing and able to take PIP cases and “that same fee expert begrudgingly ‘hate[d]’ to admit that plaintiffs’ attorneys throughout the entire State of Florida are abundantly motivated to take PIP cases (even though PIP cases contain no possibility of a multiplier).” Id. at 42.

The majority opinion in Joyce actually agreed with the dissent that PIP litigation is different because of the number of attorneys willing to take PIP lawsuits. The majority opinion notes that PIP should not be compared to other types of first-party litigation since, “the fact that there are attorneys who specialize in PIP claims, which can be handled with relative ease in a volume practice, does not correlate with the availability of competent attorneys who are willing to litigate other types of insurance coverage cases, where generally more complex issues are raised.” Id. at 25. Clearly, the majority opinion is willing to differentiate PIP lawsuits from other types of first-party litigation due to the ease of obtaining a competent attorney.

Ultimately, none of the Quanstrom factors changed with the recent Joyce decision. However, the new opinion does provide an excellent analysis and justification as to how multipliers developed under Florida law and why the Supreme Court continues to think multipliers are necessary to ensure fair and equal access to the courts. It is important to keep in mind that Joyce does not mean a PIP lawsuit can never justify a multiplier. In fact, the Quanstrom decision is a PIP lawsuit[2]. Understanding the best way to contest aggressive attempts to collect fee multipliers and create an appropriate record at the trial court level remains important in PIP litigation.

[1] Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom,555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
[2] Other notable PIP lawsuits have been awarded multipliers after there was substantial and competent evidence to justify that a multiplier was necessary.  See  State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 555 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1990)

If you have any questions on this issue, please feel free to contact our Insurance Services Team at info@roiglawyers.com.

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 seven 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 Attorney Fee Multipliers in PIP and the Search for a Guiding Lodestar

Filed under auto insurance, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Personal Injury Protection, PIP, PIP/No Fault, Uncategorized

Helping You Navigate the Choppy Waters of Hurricane Claims

Our thoughts continue to be with all those affected by Hurricane Irma. We recognize many of you will face challenges in the days and weeks ahead. In staying true to our values of loyalty and teamwork, we want to let you know that ROIG Lawyers is here to help.

With the upcoming influx of property and insurance claims to be filed, top-of-mind awareness among claim handling professionals is key in identifying fraudulent and inflated hurricane claims.

We have a close-knit group of statewide First Party Property attorneys dedicated to providing quality and proactive legal services to our clients in the area of property defense. We utilize a proactive approach in which we litigate to property claims and moreover, if the need arises, we have experienced trial attorneys on our team ready to take files through trial.

We are also available to provide complimentary in-house CE courses to our clients and colleagues as a value-added service. We do this to ensure that our clients and prospective clients are making informed decisions based on the most up to date and relevant information. These are a few of the courses that may be of most interest to you and your team.

  • Public Adjusters and SIU, 2 credit hours
    This course will inform and update insurance adjusters on the role of a public adjuster when investigating a homeowner’s claim. The course will educate adjusters on the statutory authority for public adjusters as well as ethical requirements. Adjusters will be educated on common tactics and provided with examples of ways adjusters can assist with a fraudulent claim. Finally, adjusters will be educated on the potential pitfalls associated with alleging insurance fraud.
  • Water Mitigation Claims, 1 or 2 credit hours
    This course will provide a basic overview of the various requirements of water mitigation services pursuant to the Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (“IICRC”). Specifically, the course addresses the types of machines used, the categories and classes of losses, and various SIU issues to be aware of when adjusting these types of losses.
  • Examinations Under Oath and the Law, 2 credit hours
    This course will inform insurance adjusters about examinations under oath and how and why they are used in practice. Additionally, the course indicates the information insurance adjusters should gather in anticipation of an Examination Under Oath.

If you have any questions, concerns, or to schedule a complimentary CE course, please contact the Marketing Department of ROIG Lawyers at marketing@roiglawyers.com.

ROIG Lawyers will continue to stand with you and as always, we thank you for standing by 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 seven 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 Helping You Navigate the Choppy Waters of Hurricane Claims

Filed under Florida, Hurricane Irma, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Property Insurance

Florida Insurance Rates Rise Thanks to Windshield-Replacement Schemes

According to Insurance Business America, your auto insurance premiums are going up, all because of ongoing windshield-replacement schemes.  As reported by Ryan Smith of Insurance Business America, these windshield schemes involve drivers with cracked windshields signing over insurance benefits to windshield repair and replacement shops.  These shops, through an “assignment of benefits”, will then submit an inflated invoice for the work allegedly rendered.

The Tampa Bay area has become the hub of the fraud and abuse involving these schemes.  More often then not, the fraudulent schemes are no fault of the insureds.   Florida law states that a deductible cannot be applied to windshield replacement and repair services.  This allows these shops to advertise that the work being done is “free” to the insureds.  The result of these “free” services has led to over 1900 windshield-claim lawsuits in Florida in 2016 alone; increasing litigation costs and ultimately hitting everyone’s pocket.

Click here for full article.

Comments Off on Florida Insurance Rates Rise Thanks to Windshield-Replacement Schemes

Filed under auto insurance, Auto Insurance Fraud, Florida, Florida Division of Insurance Fraud, Insurance, Insurance Defense, Insurance Fraud, Windshield, Windshield Damage Scam

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