STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC. A/A/O LESDIE CONNER
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.
An insurer may limit reimbursement pursuant to a Schedule of Maximum Charges under its policy language, and the parties' stipulations preclude any genuine dispute of material fact regarding this interpretation.
[1] An insurer's policy language permitting limitation of reimbursement pursuant to a Schedule of Maximum Charges is valid and enforceable under Florida law.
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 intelligence“The main issue for the trier of fact is whether the language of State Farm's 9810A policy, which is the applicable policy in relation to this claim, permits State Farm to limit reimbursement pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Charges.”
Joint pre-trial stipulation by the parties defining the central issue in the case
Precision Diagnostic, as assignee of Lesdie Conner, sued State Farm for failing to pay the full amount owed under an automobile insurance policy, argu…
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 Insurance Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. This appeal arises out of a small claims suit brought by Precision Diagnostic, Inc., as assignee of Lesdie Conner (“the Provider”), against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“the Insurer”), alleging that the Insurer did not pay the full amount owed under the policy. In a joint pre-trial stipulation, the parties agreed that “[t]he main issue for the trier of fact is whether the language of State Farm’s 9810A policy, which is the applicable policy in relation to this claim, permits State Farm to limit reimbursement pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Charges.” Both parties moved for summary judgment. The arguments turned on differing interpretations of the policy language, a matter which has since been put to rest by the Florida Supreme Court. See MRI Assocs. of Tampa, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2021). The trial court entered summary judgment for the Provider. Based on MRI Associates of Tampa, we reverse.
2
The Provider argues that there are remaining disputed factual issues related to the contents of the policy at the time of issuance or renewal that preclude summary judgment. Based on stipulations the parties entered below, we reject the argument. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the Insurer. See Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Back on Track, LLC, 342 So. 3d 779, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
Reversed and remanded with instructions. MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Revival Chiropractic, LLC, 334 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2024)