PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
BIOMECHANICAL TRAUMA, ASSOCIATION, INC., 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 affirmed the trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party, Radiology and Imaging Center (RIC), based on an offer of judgment, despite Progressive's argument that the offer was untimely.
The court affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and costs to RIC, finding that the offer of judgment was timely under the circumstances, despite Progressive's objections.
[1] A court may withdraw its published opinion and deny a petition for writ of certiorari when a subsequent supreme court ruling clarifies controlling law.
[2] An isolated error by a circuit court, which has subsequently receded from its erroneous ruling, may not constitute a deprivation of due process.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProgressive filed a declaratory judgment action against RIC. RIC served an offer of judgment close to a scheduled trial period, which was later contin…
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 Precedential Effect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Respondent, Biomechanical Trauma Association, Inc. (Biomechanical), seeks rehearing of our opinion granting a petition for writ of certiorari in this case. It argues that we should retract our decision in light of the supreme court’s recent opinion in Ivey v. Allstate Insurance Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla.2000). We conclude that certiorari was improvidently granted in this case.
Petitioner, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company (Progressive), sought review of the circuit court’s appellate opinion affirming the county court’s final judgment in favor of Biomechanical. The trial court had entered final judgment in the amount of $131.09 on the mistaken belief that an insurer, as a condition precedent to reducing medical charges and/or defending a lawsuit for benefits, must first obtain a report from a physician licensed with the same level of licensure as the treating physician stating that the charges are excessive. The circuit court affirmed this erroneous ruling. Thereafter, the circuit court recognized its error and receded from this case in a subsequent appeal. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lockett, No. 00-236 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. July 10, 2000).
Although we disagree with the outcome in both the county court and the circuit court, we conclude that Progressive was not deprived of due process in the circuit court. As an isolated error, the circuit court’s affirmance in this case cannot be characterized as a miscarriage of justice. Given that the circuit court has already receded from its opinion in this case, it will have no adverse precedential affect upon future cases. Although the legal analysis in our opinion, which has already been published as Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. v. Biomechanical Trauma Ass’n, Inc., 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), appears correct, we withdraw that opinion. Based on the supreme court’s ruling in Ivey, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J„ and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
- Pagliaro v. Penske Auto Ctrs., Inc., 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)