Michael Williams, former candidate for governor has taken a plea deal on charges of insurance fraud and falsely reporting a crime. Williams was sentenced to four years of probation for making false statements claiming computers were stolen from his Gainesville office.
Click here to read the article.
Filed under Fraud
Fedelin Pericles also known as “The Tag Man” was arrested by undercover officers after selling them fake temporary tags and a false insurance card. An anonymous tipster gave detectives Pericles’ phone number and told them that he was providing fraudulent temporary tags for $60 and insurance cards for $100.
On three occasions “The Tag Man” sold three undercover officers two temporary licenses and one fake insurance card. Pericles’ charges include counterfeiting a motor vehicle registration, falsifying records, uttering a forged instrument, organized fraud and driving with a suspended license.
Click here to read the article.
Filed under Fraud
Federal Judge Darrin B. Gayles ruled that Steven J. Dorfman, CEO of Simple Health Plans LLC and accused architect of a massive health insurance scheme, can have $75,000 for legal fees and $5,000 a month from his frozen personal assets. Dorman’s funds were seized when the Federal Trade Commission obtained a restraining order against him and his company in late October. He was initially seeking $15,000/month for living expenses and $200,000 for legal representation to fight the FTC’s lawsuit. The FTC wants to close Simple Health Plans permanently.
Click here to the read full article.
Filed under Fraud, Healthcare
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.
Filed under Technology
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.
Filed under Legislation, Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
You may or may not be aware that there is a new Florida law deeming Uber, Lyft and other ridesharing drivers as independent contractors and NOT employees that is going to be taking effect on July 1st. The new Florida law also provides for insurance coverage requirements that will now be mandatory for such drivers and companies. We want to make sure you know how this legislation is going to affect your business.
On May 9, 2017, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the Transportation Network Companies Act (HB 221), designating drivers for ridesharing companies in the on-demand or gig economy as “independent contractors” as long as the “transportation network company” meets four criteria that are currently met by Uber, Lyft, and other similar companies.
Under this newly enacted legislation, insurance coverage requirements are now also being made mandatory for the drivers and the ridesharing companies when they are engaged in the online application of the ridesharing company and/or in a prearranged ride. The coverage requirements under the new law can be satisfied in one of three ways. The new law also discusses the responsibilities of the driver’s personal auto insurance carrier when an accident occurs and provides avenues for the insurer to investigate the claim with the cooperation of the ridesharing company.
We recently presented a continuing education course at the 25th Annual Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC) Conference called The Ridesharing Generation: Insurance Implications & Complications which discusses this topic. We are happy to provide a copy of the presentation to you if you are interested.
For questions, or to discuss this issue in greater detail, please feel free to contact Lissette Alvarez or Cecile Mendizabal.
For more information on how to schedule a complimentary continuing education course via webinar or live presentation, please contact the Marketing Department of ROIG Lawyers.
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 law issues that requires attention.
Filed under Uncategorized
On January 26, 2017, after months of waiting, those of us in the PIP world finally have our answer to the Allstate policy language debate. It appears that you just need to read the policy as a whole and within its context.
Does Allstate’s PIP policy provide legally sufficient notice to its insureds of its election to use the permissive Medicare fee schedules found in Florida Statute 627.736(5)(a)2 (2009) in order to limit reimbursements for medical services?
The Florida Supreme Court released its opinion on January 26, 2017 holding that Allstate’s PIP insurance policy stating that Allstate’s policy “provides legally sufficient notice of Allstate’s election to use the permissive Medicare Fee Schedule identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2 to limit reimbursements.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, No. SC15-2298, at *2, (Fla. 2017).
The case before the Florida Supreme Court involved a certified decision from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals, which had held that Allstate’s policy language did not provide sufficient notice to allow the insurer to apply the Medicare Fee Schedules in limiting reimbursements to bills submitted under the PIP portion of the subject policies. The Fourth District Court of Appeals had certified its decision as it provided a direct conflict with the First District Court of Appeals’ ruling in Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. v. Stand-Up MRI of Tallahassee, P.A., 188 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), which held that Allstate’s policy language did in fact provide sufficient notice to its insurer’s to allow the Medicare Fee Schedules to be used in limiting reimbursements to bills submitted under the PIP portion of the subject policies. The First District Court of Appeals was not the only Court in the state to opine in favor of Allstate, in fact by the time that the Florida Supreme Court held oral arguments in this matter in August of 2016, the Second and Third District Courts of Appeals had already entered rulings on the issue agreeing with the First District Court of Appeals’ opinion that Allstate had provided sufficient notice to its insureds of its intent to limit PIP reimbursement by using the permissive Medicare fee schedules found in Florida Statute 627.736(5)(a)2 (2009).
The specific portion of Allstate’s policy language which was being evaluated in Orthopedic Specialists v. Allstate Insurance Co., 177 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), states that Allstate will make payments as follows:
“Allstate will pay to or on behalf of the injured person the following benefits:
1. Medical Expenses
Eighty percent of all reasonable expenses for medically necessary medical, surgical, X-ray, dental, and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices, and medically necessary ambulance, hospital, and nursing services.
Id. at 21. An endorsement to the policy provides:
Limits of Liability
. . . .
Any amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations, authorized by section 627.736, or any other provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, as enacted, amended or otherwise continued in the law, including, but not limited to, all fee schedules.
Id. (emphasis and alterations omitted).” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, No. SC15-2298, at *3, (Fla. 2017)
The Florida Supreme Court found that “[t]he endorsement to Allstate’s policy clearly and unambiguously states that ‘[a]ny amounts payable’ for medical expense reimbursements ‘shall be subject to any and all limitations, authorized by section 627.736, . . . including . . . all fee schedules.’ When read in its context and as a whole with Allstate’s policy, the plain and obvious meaning of the endorsement is that reimbursements will be made in accordance with all of the fee schedule limitations contained within section 627.736(5)(a)2. See, e.g., Stand-Up MRI, 188 So. 3d at 3 (“Virtual Imaging requires no other magic words from Allstate’s policy and its simple notice requirement is satisfied by Allstate’s [unambiguous] language limiting ‘[a]ny amounts payable’ to the fee schedule-based limitations found in the statute.” (second alteration in original); Fla. Wellness & Rehab. v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 201 So. 3d 169, 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“The use of the phrase ‘subject to’ in the policy places the insured on notice of the limitations elected by Allstate; indeed, we cannot discern any other alternative meaning to this language.”); Allstate Indem. Co. v. Markley Chiropractic & Acupuncture, LLC, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D793, 2016 WL 1238533, at *4 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 30, 2016) (explaining that “Virtual Imaging did not dictate a form of notice” or require insurers to specifically state the word “Medicare”). Allstate’s policy thus places both providers and insured on notice of Allstate’s election to use the permissive Medicare fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2. to limit reimbursements.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, No. SC15-2298, at *8-9, (Fla. 2017).
Click here to read the full opinion.
Filed under Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
