ROBERTS CHIROPRACTIC CENTER P.A., A/A/O GUO-FU LI, PETITIONER,
v.
PROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE 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 court reversed in part a summary judgment for the manufacturer, finding that while the consumers' Lemon Law claim was correctly dismissed due to failure to pursue a second arbitration, other claims were not properly resolved.
The court held that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment on the Lemon Law claim because the consumers failed to timely request a second arbitration, but reversed summary judgment on other claims not detailed in the provided text.
Consumers arbitrated a defective vehicle claim under the manufacturer's BBB Autoline program, which ruled in their favor and ordered replacement. The …
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 Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Roberts Chiropractic Center, P.A., seeks certiorari review of a circuit court, appellate division per curiam affir-mance of a county court order granting Progressive Consumers Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. The case involved the payment of personal injury protection benefits at reduced preferred provider organization rates, and a claim for statutory cost, interest and attorney’s fees. Certiorari review of a decision rendered by a circuit court acting in its appellate capacity is appropriate only if the circuit court did not afford procedural due process or departed from the essential requirements of law. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla.2008). The petitioner has not met this standard of review. Accordingly, we deny petition for writ of certiorari.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.
WOLF, C.J., BROWNING, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.