NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
NANCIE SIMMS, RESPONDENT
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 court denied certiorari review and held that Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5), which requires binding arbitration of PIP benefits disputes when a provider accepts assignment of benefits, is unconstitutional.
Section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes, requiring binding arbitration of medical benefits disputes when a provider accepts assignment of PIP benefits, is unconstitutional.
[1] Section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes, requiring binding arbitration of medical benefits disputes when a provider accepts assignment of PIP benefits, violates the Florida…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a circuit court decision that arbitration of personal injury benefits between a m…
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 Insurance Regulation cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company seeks certiorari review of the circuit court appellate panel’s decision below that arbitration of personal injury benefits between the provider, Neuro Diagnostic Center of Bre-vard, Inc. and Nationwide was not required because the insured, Nancie Simms, had not executed an “assignment of the benefits to the provider,” and thus the provider was not required to arbitrate the correctness of the bills from the provider joursuant to section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes. That statute requires binding arbitration for any claims dispute involving medical services or supplies, if the provider of PIP benefits has agreed to accept assignment of PIP benefits from the insured. It states:
Every insurer shall include a provision m its policy for personal injury protection benefits for binding arbitration of any claims dispute involving medical benefits arising between the insurer and any person providing medical services or supplies if that person has agreed to accept assignment of personal injury protection benefits.
We do not reach the merits of this case because this court has concluded that section 627.736(5) is unconstitutional. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. M & M Diagnostics, Inc., 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2233 (Fla. 5th DCA, Oct, 2, 1998). Accordingly, we deny Nationwide’s petition for certiorari.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.
HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 766 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…Delta Cas. Co. v. Pinnacle Med., Inc., 721 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Accordingly, even assuming that the statute was applicable to claims by an insured against an insurer, reversal would be required. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Simms, 724 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (refusing to address the merits of the insurer’s claim that arbitration should have been ordered between an insured and the insurer pursu [*432] ant to section 627.736(5) because of this court’s prior determination that the statu…