ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LEANDRO DE LA ROSA, 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.
Allstate Indemnity Company appealed a trial court's order granting class certification in a case where the class representative alleged Allstate violated Florida's PIP insurance statute by failing to pay 80% of medical bills without proper justification and failing to pay statutory interest. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Allstate could not defeat class certification by tendering partial payment to the named class representative.
The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting class certification. The court further held that de la Rosa's claim remained viable and he was properly named class representative because Allstate had not paid his claim in full, and the class representative can press claims on behalf of absent class members even if the insurer pays the representative's claim after certification.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting class certification when the record supports the decision.
[2] A named class representative's claim for damages remains viable despite the defendant's tenders of payment made prior to class certification.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the key holding that Allstate cannot defeat class certification by making partial payment to the class representative
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeandro de la Rosa filed a class action complaint against Allstate, his PIP insurer, alleging violations of section 627.736, Florida Statutes, by fail…
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 Violation Of Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Allstate Indemnity Company appeals from the trial court’s non-final order granting class certification and naming Le-andro de la Rosa the Class Representative. We affirm.
De la Rosa filed a class action complaint in November 1999 in which he alleged that Allstate, his PIP insurer, violated section 627.736, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996) by failing to pay 80% of his medical bills without first obtaining either a report of a physician who performed an independent medical examination or a record review justifying the reduced payment of those bills, and by failing to pay statutory interest after declining to provide PIP benefit payments within 30 days of being given notice of the loss.
Allstate admitted liability as to de la Rosa and tendered a check for $87.46, purportedly for the balance of the PIP payment plus statutory interest; Allstate also admitted plaintiffs entitlement to attorney’s fees. De la Rosa refused the tender, claiming the payment failed to include all principal and interest payments plus prejudgment interest on the accrued interest. Following a hearing, the court granted plaintiffs motion for certification as to two classes and abated ruling on certification of yet one more class.1
After thoroughly reviewing the record and the case law it is apparent that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting class certification. See Amedex Ins. Co. v. Tothe, 794 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Shoma Dev. Co. v. Vazquez, 749 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Oce Printing Sys. USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Servs., Inc., 760 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys. I, Ltd., 694 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Labora, 670 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1995).
Furthermore, the court properly named Leandro De La Rosa class representative. Contrary to Allstate’s argument on appeal, De La Rosa’s claim for damages remains viable despite Allstate’s tenders of payment.2 Although an insurer may recognize that it has made errors and may then try to correct them prior to class certification, see Taran v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 685 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), it cannot simply try to “pick off’ the named class representative. See Ramon v. Aries Ins. Co., 769 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 780 So. 2d 231, 232 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In Ramon, the plaintiff/purported class representative “conceded that all of his medical providers had been paid in full, with interest, and that he was due no money from the insurer.” Ramon v. Aries Ins. Co., 769 So. 2d at 1054. In this case, however, the record is clear that Allstate has failed to pay De La Rosa’s alleged claim in full. During the pendency of this appeal Allstate offered to pay de la Rosa an additional amount; he declined the offer. Even if Allstate were to pay his claim in full after the class was certified, “the class representative may still be able to press the claim on behalf of the absent class members.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chaple, 774 So. 2d 742, 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED.
. The court’s thorough ten-page Order Granting Class Certification defines the three classes in detail, and provides that "[s]ub-classes may be created in the future if necessary.”
. Our decision does not address the merits of any of the claims raised.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
KIA Motors Am. Corp. v. Butler, 985 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…r not the alleged deficiency manifested itself in a particular case. Reviewing the certification order on an abuse of discretion standard, see Engle v. Liggett [*1135] Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246, 1267 (Fla.2006); Allstate Indem. Co. v. De La Rosa, 800 So. 2d 245, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in certifying a class in this case. I. Factual Background and Procedural History The trial court has defined the class in this case as “all persons who purchased and/or lea…
-
Ahearn v. Mayo Clinic, 180 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…apman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F. 3d 783 (7th Cir.2015). . "Picking off” the class representative after certification of the class does not deprive the class representative of standing to continue the class action. Allstate Ind. Co. v. De La Rosa, 800 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). . The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines aggrieved as “feeling resentment at having been unfairly treated.” Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com (last visited August 20, 2015). This definition is consistent wit…
-
Altamonte Springs Imaging, L.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…representative ($10,000) and to the attorneys for Open MRI and the class ($485,000). These objections were rejected by the trial court, and we review those findings under the abuse of discretion standard of review. Allstate Indem. Co. v. De La Rosa, 800 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Bd DCA 2001) (findings supporting certification of a class under Rule 1.220); Ramos v. Philip Moms Cos., 743 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (findings supporting settlement of the class member claims). We apply heightened scrutiny to the simultan…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Taran v. Blue Cross Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 685 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys. I, Ltd., 694 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Ramon v. The Aries Ins. Co., 769 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- OCÉ Printing Sys. USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Servs., Inc., 760 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 780 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Sears v. Labora, 670 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Shoma Dev. Corp. v. Vazquez, 749 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Narson v. Rodell, 774 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Allen v. State, 794 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)