NATIONAL CAR RENTAL AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
GLORIA SANCHEZ, APPELLEE
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.
National Car Rental and Travelers Insurance sought a pure bill for discovery to compel an independent medical examination of an injured accident victim before she filed suit, claiming the 1976 no-fault insurance law amendments made such examination necessary to evaluate their defense. The court affirmed dismissal of the request, holding that the Legislature's inclusion of IME provisions in one statute section while omitting them from another constituted a deliberate exclusion.
The court held that insurance carriers may not use a pure bill for discovery to compel pre-suit independent medical examinations of potential plaintiffs. The Legislature's deliberate inclusion of independent medical examination provisions in the PIP benefits statute (section 627.736) while omitting them from the threshold injury definition statute (section 627.737) constitutes an intentional exclusion.
[1] A pure bill of discovery is a viable legal action in Florida.
[2] Requiring trial courts to entertain pure bills of discovery to determine if a potential plaintiff meets no-fault insurance act threshold requirements would unduly burden…
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“If the trial court were to be required to entertain a pure bill of discovery to determine whether a potential plaintiff could meet the threshold requirements of the no fault act, this would obviously burden the trial courts with trying matters which could just as well be determined in an ordinary common law action filed by the injured party.”
Establishes the court's policy rationale for rejecting pre-suit discovery mechanisms in no-fault cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez was injured in an automobile accident on December 3, 1976, involving a vehicle owned by National Car Rental and insured by Travelers. On Febru…
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 No-Fault Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
The appellee, Sanchez, was injured in an automobile accident on December 3, 1976. The other vehicle involved was an automobile owned by National Car Rental and insured by Travelers Insurance Company.
On February 15,1977, National and Travelers filed a complaint in the nature of a pure bill for discovery, seeking to obtain an independent medical examination of San chez to ascertain her present medical condition, because Sanchez was allegedly contemplating filing a complaint for injuries sustained in the December 3, 1976 accident. A motion to dismiss was filed by Sanchez. The trial court granted same without stating the grounds therefor and this appeal ensued.
The Legislature amended the no fault insurance law in 1976 to include Section 627.737(2)(e), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows:
“(e) A serious, nonpermanent injury which has a material degree of bearing on the injured person’s ability to resume his normal activity and lifestyle during all or substantially all of the 90 day period after the occurrence of the injury, and the effects of which are medically or scientifically demonstrable at the end of such period.”
The appellants contend that it then became necessary, in order to protect their possible defenses, to obtain an independent medical examination of Sanchez either during the 90-day period or shortly thereafter. We affirm the trial court for several reasons. First, to permit what the plaintiffs sought in the trial court would place an additional burden on the trial courts of this State in automobile accident personal injury cases, because in those instances where an injured party ultimately filed a complaint seeking damages for alleged injuries it would not only be possible but, in all probability, a fact that insurance carriers would already have filed an independent action seeking the same relief sought by the action filed in the trial court in the instant matter. One of the reasons for the adoption of the no fault insurance provisions in this State was to eliminate certain matters being presented to the trial courts for consideration. Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company, 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974). If the trial court were to be required to entertain a pure bill of discovery1 (which we find to still be viable in Florida) to determine whether a potential plaintiff could meet the threshold requirements of the no fault act, this would obviously burden the trial courts with trying matters which could just as well be determined in an ordinary common law action filed by the injured party.
We further note that the Legislature amended the statute to provide for just such a physical medical examination, as requested of the injured party in the trial court in this matter, when it related to PIP benefits. See: Section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1976). Applying principles of statutory construction that where the Legislature includes in one section of a chapter the right for an independent medical examination and excludes it in another, the courts ordinarily construe this to be a deliberate omission and we so hold in the instant matter. In this connection, see: Florida Industrial Commission v. National Trucking Company, 107 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Peterman v. Floriland Farms, Inc., 131 So. 2d 479 (Fla.1961).
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order of the trial judge here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Poling v. Petroleum Corporation, 194 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Camer v. Ratner, 207 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…auses of action exist.” Publix, 696 So. 2d at 1371. Neither is it available simply to obtain a preview of discovery obtainable once suit is filed. Such a use of the bill places an undue burden on the court system. See National Car Rental v. Sanchez, 349 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). There is nothing in this record reflecting that the Sheriffs position is distinguishable from that of other plaintiffs who would use this investigation tool to seek information that might uncover a potential claim. See Publix,…
-
JM Fam. Enters., Inc. v. Freeman, 758 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…, 696 So. 2d [1369] at 1371 [(Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ]. Neither is it available simply to obtain a preview of discovery obtainable once suit is filed. Such a use of the bill places an undue burden on the court system. See National Car Rental v. Sanchez, 349 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (emphasis added). In Mendez, we concluded that there was nothing in the record distinguishing the plaintiffs claim from that of others who would use the same investigation…
-
Trak Microwave Corp. v. Culley, 728 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…m Television Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 694 F.Supp. 889 (S.D.Fla.1988). However, a party may not utilize this mechanism to determine whether a cause of action exists or as a “fishing expedition.” See National Car Rental v. Sanchez, 349 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Because state and federal rules of civil procedure have relaxed many of the older code pleading requirements and now authorize liberal discovery, it is rare that a party has n…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Washington v. State, 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)
- Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)
- Fla. Indus. Comm'n ex rel. Special Disability Fund v. Nat'l Trucking Co., 107 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Gracie Mae Peterman v. Floriland Farms, Inc., 131 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1961)
- Poling v. Petroleum Carrier Corp., 194 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Rivera v. State, 207 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)