VELO CHIRO FIZIK, INC., A/A/O DAILY LUGO
v.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment to the extent the trial court found the insurance policies provided legally sufficient notice of the insurers' election to use permissive fee schedules under Florida Statutes § 627.736(5)(a)2, but reversed and remanded because the record lacked evidence that Allstate actually paid pursuant to those fee schedules.
An insurer's election to use permissive fee schedules must be supported by evidence that the insurer actually paid benefits according to those schedules, not merely that the policy provided notice of the election.
[1] An insurer seeking summary judgment on a breach of contract claim based on use of permissive fee schedules must present affidavit or summary judgment evidence demonstrati…
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 intelligenceMultiple medical providers sued Allstate insurance companies for breach of personal injury protection policies, claiming Allstate failed to pay benefi…
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 Medicare Fee Schedules cases and more on FLexlaw
LOBREE, J.
In this consolidated appeal,1 the medical providers appeal final
summary judgments entered in favor of the insurers (collectively referred to
as “Allstate”), on respective claims that Allstate breached the applicable
personal injury protection policies by failing to pay benefits due for medical
services provided to the insureds. We discern no error and affirm the entry
of summary judgment to the extent the trial court found that the policies at
issue provide legally sufficient notice of the insurer’s election to use the
permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida
Statutes (2009).2 See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, 212 So. 3d
because the record is devoid of an affidavit, or any summary judgment
evidence, showing that Allstate paid pursuant to the fee schedules. See
Gonzalez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031, 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA
2019) (explaining that summary judgment movant “must offer sufficient
admissible evidence to support his claim of the non-existence of a genuine
issue. If he fails to do this his motion is lost.” (quoting Harvey Bldg., Inc. v.
Haley, 175 So. 2d 780, 782–83 (Fla. 1965))). As such, we affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.
Tampa v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 So. 3d 577, 582 (Fla. 2021). This renumbering has no impact on our analysis.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Ocie M. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Yosvani Gonzalez and Yenisleidy Perez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Revival Chiropractic, LLC, 334 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2024)
- J.M.B. v. State, 776 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)