UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
ISO-DIAGNOSTICS TESTING, INC. A/A/O GERARDO 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.
Under the plain meaning of the PIP insurance policy and applicable statute, the definition of 'year' means a service year governing the payout at issue, not a different reference year.
[1] Under the plain meaning of a PIP insurance policy and applicable statute, the 'year' referenced in the definition of payment obligations means the service year governing…
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“under the plain meaning of the policy and the statute, whether pre- or post-amendment [of the statute], the definition of a 'year' meant a service year governing the payout at issue.”
Court's explanation of the controlling legal principle derived from prior precedent
United Automobile Insurance Company denied additional PIP payments to medical provider ISO-Diagnostics, paying based on the 2017 Medicare Schedule rat…
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 Claim For Pip Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Kathleen McHugh, Judge; L.T. Case No. COCE21-29607.
Lissette Gonzalez and Francesca M. Stein of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Mac S. Phillips of Phillips | Tadros, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company, appeals a judgment in favor of a medical provider, ISO-Diagnostics Testing, Inc. (“ISO”), for PIP benefits. The trial court ruled in ISO’s favor on its claim that, pursuant to the policy, United owed additional PIP payments because United had improperly paid ISO based on the 2017 Medicare Schedule of Payments, rather than the higher 2018 schedule. We have recently decided this exact issue involving a United PIP policy with the similar relevant policy language against the same provider in United Automobile Insurance Co. vs. ISO-Diagnostics Testing, Inc., a/a/o Suryma Pineiro Morales, No. 4D2022-1735, --- So. 3d ---, 2024 WL 103664 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 10, 2024). We reversed the judgment for ISO and held that “under the plain meaning of the policy and the statute, whether pre-or post-amendment [of the statute], the definition of a ‘year’ meant a service year governing the payout at issue.” Id. at *2.
Based upon our prior opinion, we also reverse the final judgment for ISO in this case and remand for entry of judgment for United.
Reversed.
2
WARNER, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Iso-Diagnostics Testing, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…this exact issue involving a United PIP policy with the similar relevant policy language against the same provider in United Automobile Insurance Co. vs. ISO-Diagnostics Testing, Inc., a/a/o Suryma Pineiro Morales, No. 4D2022- 1735, --- So. 3d ---, 2024 WL 103664 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 10, 2024). We reversed the judgment for ISO and held that “under the plain meaning of the policy and the statute, whether pre- or post-amendment [of the statute], the definition of a ‘year’ meant a service year governing the payo…
Authorities Cited
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Iso-Diagnostics Testing, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)