The Third District Court of Appeal recently ruled in favor of Allstate in a dispute over personal injury protection (PIP) reimbursements for medical services following an auto accident.
The Third DCA now agrees with two other appellate courts: the First in Tallahassee and the Second in Lakeland. However, as a result of a contrary ruling from the Fourth DCA in West Palm Beach, the dispute is set for oral argument before the Florida Supreme Court in September.
The dispute focuses on language in auto insurance policies that spells out if the insurer properly elected to pay medical bills based upon the Medicare fee schedules enumerated in the PIP statute. Florida courts have said the insurance policies must unambiguously elect the use of the statutory fee schedules in limiting reimbursement for PIP claims.
The Third DCA case came from five consolidated appeals. All five concerned a medical provider, as assignee of a person insured by Allstate, suing Allstate for payment of medical bills under the PIP statute. In each case the policy had identical policy language stating: “Any amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations, authorized by section 627.736 … including but not limited to, all fee schedules.”
Third DCA Judge Thomas Logue, who wrote the opinion, agreed with the opinions in the other two appellate courts finding for Allstate and noted that he agreed with Judge Melanie May’s dissent in the Fourth DCA ruling. Logue disagreed with medical providers, who insisted the words “subject to” were ambiguous.
“A decision that the term ‘subject to’ is ambiguous would mean that the Judicial Code and many provisions of Florida Statutes were legally meaningless and in need of redrafting,” Logue wrote. “We decline to adopt such a counter-intuitive interpretation of a common and well-understood legal expression. The use of the phrase ‘subject to’ in the policy places the insured on notice of the limitations elected by Allstate.”
Click here for full story.