MAURICE DERIUS, PETITIONER,
v.
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, 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 Florida Supreme Court dismissed Derius's petition for review because the conflict between the Fourth and Third District Courts of Appeal regarding PIP medical bill payment requirements had been resolved by the Court's prior decision in Rodriguez.
The Court dismissed the petition because the conflict between Derius and Perez was resolved by Rodriguez, which held that language in Perez regarding insurer obligations to obtain medical reports was erroneous.
Derius involved a dispute over whether a doctor's written report is required as a condition precedent to reducing payment of a PIP bill under section …
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 (Pip) Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Senior Justice.
We granted review in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Derius, 773 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), based on conflict with Perez v. State Farm, Fire & Casualty Co., 746 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1999), quashed sub nom. United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d 82 (Fla.2001). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Deñus held that a doctor’s written report is not required “as a condition precedent to reducing payment of a [PIP] bill” under section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1999).1 Derius sought review in this Court based on conflict with Perez, wherein the Third District Court of Appeal held that, under a different PIP provision, an insurer must pay a medical bill unless the insurer first “obtain[s], within thirty days, a medical report providing ‘reasonable proof that it is not responsible for payment.” 2
We have since decided United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d 82 (Fla.2001), wherein we ruled that the above language in Perez was erroneous.3 The conflict between Derius and Perez thus has been resolved, and we dismiss Derius. We deny Derius’s motion for attorney s fees because he is not the prevailing party before this Court.
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., dissents.
CANTERO, J., recused.
. See Derius, ITS So. 2d at 1191.
. See Perez, 746 So. 2d at 1125 (emphasis omitted).
. See Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d at 87.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2001)
- Perez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 746 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Allstate Indem. Co. v. Derius, 773 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)