NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
NU-BEST DIAGNOSTIC LABS, INC., ETC., APPELLEES
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.
Nationwide's appeal is granted; the court reverses the trial court's judgment that prevented Nationwide from defending against PIP claims, holding that an insurer may defend against unreasonable medical procedures even without timely obtaining proof, following Jones rather than Perez.
An insurer may defend against personal injury protection claims based on unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated medical procedures without being barred by failure to timely obtain proof of unreasonableness.
[1] An insurer's failure to timely obtain proof that medical procedures are unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to a motor vehicle accident does not bar the insurer from…
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 to defend against PIP claims filed by its insureds, who had assigned their policy rights to Nu Best Di…
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 Personal Injury Protection Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
This consolidated appeal is based on orders certified to be of great public importance by the county court. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company seeks review of orders determining that it may not defend against personal injury protection (PIP) claims of Nationwide’s insureds because Nationwide did not timely obtain reasonable proof that the medical procedures were unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to the motor vehicle accidents. The various insureds in the consolidated cases assigned their rights under their PIP policies to appellee Nu Best Diagnostic Labs. This court has jurisdiction.1
On the merits, we reverse the judgments in favor of Nu Best. See Gurney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 5D00-3775 (Fla. 5th DCA July 6, 2001); Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 694 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The trial court rightly perceived a conflict between our opinion in Jones and the opinion of the third district in Perez v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 746 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), rev. granted, United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 767 So. 2d 464 (Fla.2000). The court chose to follow Perez but should have followed Jones. See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1992).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur. . Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(4)(A).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brass & Singer, P.A. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 944 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2006)…ured or, in this case, the insured’s assignee who lost on appeal. Brass & Singer, P.A., 919 So. 2d at 475.2 In so holding, the Third District endorsed the Fifth District’s decision in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Nu-Best Diagnostic Labs, Inc., 810 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). 919 So. 2d at 475. In Gedeon, the Fourth District held that a circuit court acting in its appellate capacity erred in refusing to conditionally grant appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 627.428 to an insured who lost o…
-
State v. Trauth, 971 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…e circuit court’s entitlement order. Lastly, rule 9.400 “governs the procedure to be followed with respect to appellate entitlement to fees,” but it “is procedural rather than substantive.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nu-Best Diagnostic Labs, Inc., 810 So. 2d 514, 515 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Therefore, rule 9.400 cannot be the basis for an award of attorneys’ fees. An award of appellate attorneys’ fees must be supported by a particular contractual, statutory, or other substantive basis. United Servs. Auto. Ass’…
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco & Liggett Grp. LLC v. Erskin Donal Ward, 141 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…e strictly construed. See, e.g., Dade County v. Pena, 664 So. 2d 959 (Fla.1995) (citing Gershuny v. Martin McFall Messenger Anesthesia Professional Ass'n, 539 So. 2d 1131, 1132 (Fla.1989).) Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nu-Best Diagnostic Labs, Inc., 810 So. 2d 514, 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The supreme court has discussed the matter in detail: At the outset, we note that some of the decisions of this Court contain the historically incorrect statement that attorney fee statutes are “in derogation of the common…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- Perez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 746 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Jenkins v. The Dep't OF Corr., 694 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 694 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)