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
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)
A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit against HCA Holdings charging that HCA and three of its Florida hospitals violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s April 26 ruling overturned a February 2015 federal court decision in the Middle District of Florida that dismissed the class action. That suit accused three HCA hospitals—Memorial Hospital Jacksonville, North Florida Regional Medical Center of Gainesville and JFK Medical Center in Atlantis—of charging unreasonably high fees for emergency radiological services covered by Florida’s Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance.
The four Florida residents who filed the complaint received emergency radiological services after motor vehicle accidents. They said they were billed more than other patients who received the same services. “In fact, these fees are up to 65 times higher than the usual and customary fees charged to non-PIP patients for similar radiological services,” according to the complaint.
In one example, the court’s opinion said the hospitals charged between $5,900 and $6,965 for spinal CT scans on the plaintiffs. The ruling said Medicare rates for spinal CT scans are between $213 and $220, and rates for uninsured patients go up to $3,454.
The complaint said the exorbitant rates caused the residents’ $10,000 PIP coverage to be exhausted prematurely. The complaint also accuses HCA of breach of contract as the four Floridians entered into a Condition of Admission contract that required their accounts to be paid at the hospitals’ price lists. All four plaintiffs said they weren’t provided such a price list at the time of their treatments.
Only one of the four plaintiffs was allowed to go forward with a suit against a single hospital in the 2015 ruling by U.S. District Judge James Moody in the Middle District of Florida. Moody’s ruling was overturned by a unanimous Eleventh Circuit panel consisting of Judges Beverly B. Martin, Julie E. Carnes and Senior Judge R. Lanier Anderson III. The suit was originally filed July 2014 in the Southern District of Florida.
Filed under Uncategorized
The U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta has agreed to consider an appeal of a lower-court decision in Florida on whether drivers in Palm Beach County and across Florida should be granted class-action status in their claim against Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) Hospitals who are allegedly grossly overcharging for services under the state’s PIP/No-Fault insurance system.
According to a recent blog post on PalmBeachPost.com, the lower court decision in Florida stated the drivers could pursue cases individually against HCA Hospitals but not as a group. The plaintiffs in the case allege that the hospitals are draining Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits by charging up to 65 times what Medicare pays.
Click here to read the blog post.
Filed under Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
