UNITED AUTOMOBILE
v.
MIAMI DADE MRI MARIA GONZALEZ
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 appeals a summary judgment awarding Miami Dade MRI the full amount of medical bills for services rendered to an insured patient. The court affirmed the rejection of United Auto's accord and satisfaction defense but reversed the summary judgment on the reasonableness of MRI's charges, finding it was error to exclude United Auto's conflicting affidavit regarding the bills' reasonableness.
The trial court properly rejected United Auto's accord and satisfaction defense, and that ruling is affirmed. However, the summary judgment on reasonableness was reversed because the trial court erred in excluding United Auto's conflicting affidavit on whether the medical bills were reasonable in price, making summary judgment improper.
[1] A partial payment does not constitute accord and satisfaction when the elements of accord and satisfaction are not met under common law or the Uniform Commercial Code.
[2] Excluding a defendant's affidavit challenging the reasonableness of medical bills constitutes an abuse of discretion when the affidavit conflicts with the plaintiff's evi…
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. Taking United Auto's excluded affidavit into account, it was error to grant summary judgment.”
Establishes that exclusion of United Auto's affidavit was reversible error and that conflicting affidavits on reasonableness preclude summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaria Gonzalez was injured in an automobile accident on May 19, 2008, and was insured under a policy issued by United Automobile. She received treatme…
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.
PER CURIAM.
On May 19, 2008, Maria Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) was involved in an 1 Judge de la O did not participate in oral argument. [*2] Page 2 of 5 automobile accident and sustained personal injuries. She was insured under an automobile policy issued by the Appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company (“United Auto”). Gonzalez was treated by Appellee, Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. (“MRI”). She assigned her right to PIP benefits under the United Auto policy to MRI. MRI subsequently then billed United Auto for services rendered to Gonzalez. When United Auto only made a partial payment for the services billed, MRI filed a complaint for breach of contract. In response, United Auto raised the defense of accord and satisfaction and challenged the reasonableness of MRI’s charges. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of MRI on both issues. We agree the trial court was correct in rejecting United Auto’s accord and satisfaction defense. However, we reverse on the issue of reasonableness.
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 Insurance Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Ramos, 2018-218 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., June 11, 2020). [*3] Page 3 of 5 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. 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 [*4] Page 4 of 5 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 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. [*5] Page 5 of 5 COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL