PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER A

9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. | 2017-07-01
Nos. 17-CV-9-13, 24
1 FLCA 5952 Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Appellate Division (2017)

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.

Synopsis

Progressive Insurance companies appealed summary judgments in favor of Florida Hospital Medical Center in six consolidated cases involving insurance billing disputes. After the Fifth District Court of Appeal denied certiorari review of a related case establishing controlling law, the Hospital confessed error, leading the appellate court to reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with the controlling precedent.


Holding

The court reversed the summary judgments and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Hunt decision, which established that the trial court erred in failing to follow the controlling precedent and in finding that the insurer was not entitled to contest the reasonableness of the provider's bill.


Headnotes

[1] A confession of error by an appellee may lead to reversal of a lower court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

[2] An insurer may be entitled to contest the reasonableness of a healthcare provider's bill.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“In Hunt, this Court determined that the trial court erred in failing to follow Progressive Select Insurance Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Central Fla., 202 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), and in finding that the insurer was not entitled to contest the reasonableness of the provider's bill.”

Establishes the controlling legal standard that the trial courts failed to apply—insurers must be allowed to contest the reasonableness of provider bills.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

These six consolidated cases involved disputes between Progressive Insurance companies and Florida Hospital Medical Center regarding the reasonablenes…

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.


Opinion of the Court

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN

CASE NOS.: 2017-CV-9-A-O INSURANCE COMPANY,

2017-CV-10-A-O

2017-CV-11-A-O Appellant,

2017-CV-12-A-O

2017-CV-13-A-O v. 2017-CV-24-A-O

FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL

L.T. CASE NOS.: 2014-SC-8438-O CENTER, a/a/o Margarita Torres,

2013-SC-7534-O

2014-SC-11844-O

Appellee.

2013-SC-5856-O

/

2013-SC-8322-O

2014-SC-11826-O

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o Elizabeth Flanagan, Appellee.

/

PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o Tatiana Bayona, Appellee.

/ PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o Zoe Gainous, Appellee.

/

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o Annmarie Selvin, Appellee.

/

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o Dulce Corrales, Appellee.

/

Appeals from the County Court, for Orange County, Florida, Steve Jewett, County Judge, and Tina Caraballo, County Judge.

Michael C. Clarke, Esquire, and Andrew T. Lynn, Esquire, for Appellant.

Robert J. Hauser, Esquire, for Appellee. Before THORPE, MYERS, and O’KANE, J.J.

PER CURIAM.

ON CONFESSIONS OF ERROR

In these consolidated appeals, the Court previously granted Appellee’s motions to stay pending the resolution of Appellee’s petition for writ of certiorari in 5D19-1372, filed in the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In 5D19-1372, Appellee was seeking certiorari review of this Court’s opinion in Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Florida Hospital Medical Center a/a/o Larry Hunt, No. 2017-CV-000146-A-O (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Apr. 11, 2019) (“Hunt”), which according to Appellee “addressed a critical legal issue.”1 Appellee was directed to give this Court prompt written notice once the decision of the Fifth District in 5D19-1372 became final.

Recently, the Fifth District denied certiorari in 5D19-1372. Fla. Hosp. Med. Ctr. a/a/o Larry Hunt v. Progressive Select Ins. Co., No. 5D19-1372 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 22, 2019). On January 10, 2020, Appellee filed confessions of error, in which Appellee confessed error in light of this Court’s opinion in Hunt, and stated that the “appropriate procedure” is to set aside the summary judgments on appeal and to remand “for further proceedings in accordance with Hunt.” In view of Appellee’s confessions of error, the stays previously imposed in these appeals are now lifted. We reverse the summary

Footnotes
1 In Hunt, this Court determined that the trial court erred in failing to follow Progressive Select Insurance Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Central Fla., 202 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), and in finding that the insurer was not entitled to contest the reasonableness of the provider’s bill. judgments entered in these cases and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Hunt. Appellant’s motions for provisional award of appellate attorney fees, filed in 2017-CV-9-A-O, 2017-CV-10-A-O, 2017-CV-11-A-O, 2017-CV-12-A-O, 2017-CV-13-A-O, and 2017-CV-24-A-O, are granted, contingent on a judgment of no liability or a judgment obtained by Appellee that is at least 25% less than the amount of Appellant’s proposal for settlement, and on the trial court’s determination that Appellant’s proposal for settlement is otherwise enforceable under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2018), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The assessment of those fees is remanded to the trial court. Appellee’s motions for appellate attorney’s fees, filed in 2017-CV-9-A-O, 2017-CV-10-A-O, 2017-CV-11-A-O, 2017-CV-12-A-O, 2017-CV-13-A-O, and 2017-CV A-O, are denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this _______ day of ______________, 2020.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw