LUCIA SAN HUEZA, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONAL FOUNDATION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment in favor of an insurance company in a dispute over medical payments under a health insurance policy. The court reversed, finding that the defendant failed to establish the defense of accord and satisfaction and that late-filed interrogatory answers did not defeat the plaintiff's genuine issue of material fact regarding outstanding hospital bills.
The court held that accord and satisfaction was not established beyond genuine issue because there was no showing of a real dispute over the plaintiff's entitlement, the plaintiff did not engage in conduct demonstrating intent to compromise (particularly by not cashing checks and refusing to sign the release), and the lack of mutual intention defeats the defense. The court also held that the timing of filing interrogatory answers did not render them insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
[1] An accord and satisfaction requires a genuine dispute as to the entitlement to sums claimed, which can be compromised.
[2] For an accord and satisfaction to be valid, the claimant must engage in conduct demonstrating an intention to effect a binding resolution of a contested claim.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a mutual intention to do so is the indispensable essence of a valid accord and satisfaction”
Establishes the core requirement for the accord and satisfaction defense, which the court found was not met here due to lack of evidence of mutual intent between the parties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant insurance carrier sent four checks to the plaintiff's lawyer and medical providers for reimbursement of allegedly covered hospital expen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Release cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff below appeals from a summary judgment for the defendant carrier in an action to recover for medical payments allegedly due under a health insurance policy. We find that neither of the bases asserted below and on appeal justifies the judgment under review.
First, the defense of accord and satisfaction was not established beyond genuine issue1 because, among other things (a) there was no showing of the existence of a real dispute as to the plaintiff’s entitlement to the sums represented by the four checks previously transmitted by the defendant; hence, there was arguably nothing to be “compromised” at all, 10 Fla.Jur.2d Compromise, Accord, and Release §§ 5-6 (1979); (b) since the sums in question were sent not to Mrs. San Hueza but to her lawyer and were made payable to and negotiated respectively by the medical entities which provided the services and her husband as reimbursement for expenses he had paid, the plaintiff, who did not cash any of the checks herself, did not engage in conduct which could sustain a conclusion that she intended to effect a binding resolution of the supposedly contested claim; a mutual intention to do so is the indispensable essence of a valid accord and satisfaction, Hannah v. James A. Ryder Corp., 380 So. 2d 507, 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); and (c) the plaintiff's failure to sign, as requested, the release which accompanied the checks likewise demonstrates an issue as to whether such an agreement was intended. See Hannah v. James A. Ryder Corp., 380 So. 2d at 510.
Second, we cannot agree with the appellee that the plaintiffs answers to interrogatories, which so stated, were nevertheless insufficient to create a genuine issue as to the fact that allegedly insured hospital bills remained outstanding merely because of the obviously non-prejudicial fact that, although they were served within the time required by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.340(a) and 1.510(c)2 and received by the defendant at least one day before the hearing, the answers were not filed until the time of the hearing itself. See Garris v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Maler v. Baptist Hospital, Inc., 532 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Zayres Dep’t Stores v. Fingerhut, 383 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Reversed.
. We do not preclude a finding after remand that the defense did not exist as a matter of law.
. "The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits prior to the day of hearing.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hannah v. James A. Ryder Corp., 380 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Jacobsen v. Monroe Cnty., 383 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Maler v. Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc., 532 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Phylis Garris v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)