UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, D/B/A MILLENNIUM OPEN MRI, A/A/O ANGEL BAUZA
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.
Collateral estoppel does not apply when the assignees and medical providers are identical but the insured or assignor differs, as the identity of parties element is not satisfied.
[1] Collateral estoppel does not apply in personal injury protection actions where the assignees and medical providers are identical if the insured or assignor differs, as th…
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 intelligenceUnited Automobile Insurance Company challenged summary judgment favoring Millennium Radiology, LLC in a first-party personal injury protection action.…
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 Collateral Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
Marks & Fleischer, P.A., and Gary Marks (Fort Lauderdale), David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines), for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Insurer, United Automobile Insurance Company, challenges a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, Millennium Radiology, LLC, in a first-party personal injury protection action. On appeal, United Auto argues the “identity of the parties” element of collateral estoppel is not satisfied where the assignees and medical providers are identical but the insured or assignor is different. Recognizing that the trial court did not have the benefit of our decision in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D175a (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022) at the time judgment was rendered, we nonetheless agree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the order under review.
Reversed and remanded.