UNITED AUTOMOBILE
v.
MIAMI DADE MRI JUANA ESPINOSA RUIZ
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.
United Automobile Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment favoring Miami Dade MRI on a breach of contract claim for unpaid Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits. The court affirmed the trial court's rejection of United Auto's accord and satisfaction defense but reversed on the reasonableness of medical charges, finding it was error to exclude United Auto's conflicting affidavit on pricing.
The court affirmed the trial court's rejection of United Auto's accord and satisfaction defense, finding it did not meet the required elements under common law or the UCC. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on reasonableness, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding United Auto's conflicting affidavit on the reasonableness of the medical bills.
[1] A partial payment made by an insurer does not, by itself, satisfy the elements of accord and satisfaction under common law or the Uniform Commercial Code.
[2] Excluding a defendant's affidavit challenging the reasonableness of medical charges constitutes an abuse of discretion when determining summary judgment.
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“it was an abuse of discretion to exclude United Auto's conflicting affidavit on whether the medical bills at issue were reasonable in price”
Establishes the core holding that summary judgment was improper when the trial court disregarded United Auto's evidence on reasonableness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 16, 2009, Juana Espinosa Ruiz was injured in an automobile accident and received treatment from Miami Dade County MRI. Ruiz assigned her PIP be…
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.
Before: TRAWICK, WALSH and DE LA O1, JJ.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION
United Auto filed a motion for final summary judgment on the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction, and MRI responded with a motion for summary judgment on the same issue. The trial court denied United Auto’s motion and granted MRI’s, ruling that United Auto’s partial payment did not meet the elements of accord and satisfaction under either the common law or the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). We affirm this ruling for the reasons set forth in United Automobile [*3] Page 3 of 5 Insurance Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Ramos, 2018-218 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., June 11, 2020).
REASONABLENESS
Having succeeded in defeating United Auto’s accord and satisfaction defense, MRI filed a motion for summary judgment contending its charges were reasonable. MRI relied on an affidavit from its operations manager to establish the reasonableness of its charges. United Auto responded with an affidavit from its adjuster, Denorah Lang. The trial court rejected the conflicting affidavit offered by United Auto and entered summary judgment in favor of MRI. This case is indistinguishable from our decision in United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Bermudez, 2018-164 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., June 3, 2020). As this panel and the majority of prior panels from this Court have found, it was an abuse of discretion to exclude United Auto’s conflicting affidavit on whether the medical bills at issue were reasonable in price. Taking United Auto’s excluded affidavit into account, it was error to grant summary judgment. See State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gables Insurance Recovery a/a/o Yuderis Rego, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 860a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Nov. 20. 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Open MRI of Miami Dade, Ltd. a/a/o Rosa Castillo, Case No. 2017-326-AP-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Nov. 6, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Marta Figueredo, 27 Fla. [*4] Page 4 of 5
L. Weekly Supp. 506b (Fla. 11th Cir. App. July 30, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Javier Rodriguez, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 225c (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. July 25, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Rene Dechard, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 226a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., August 12, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Millennium Radiology, LLC a/a/o Javier Rodriguez, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 911b (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., July 19, 2019). Accordingly, the summary judgment and final judgment entered below are hereby REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court. Appellee’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is conditionally GRANTED, limited to the issue on which it prevailed and conditioned upon ultimately prevailing. Appellant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is conditionally GRANTED, limited to the issue on which it prevailed, conditioned upon Appellant ultimately prevailing and the enforceability of the proposal for settlement, and REMANDED to the trial court to fix amount. DE LA O, specially concurs. I concur in the result. Although I believe that the language United Auto placed in the payee line of the check to MRI satisfies the conspicuousness requirement under the UCC, I equally believe in stare decisis. This Court having previously held in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o [*5] Page 5 of 5
Ramos, 2018-218 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., June 11, 2020) that the same facts did not constitute sufficient accord and satisfaction, I am bound to concur here.