Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed May 24, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1758

Lower Tribunal No. 13-3968 CC

________________

State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Central Therapy Center, Inc., 

a/a/o Antonio Garcia,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michaelle 

Gonzalez-Paulson, Judge.

Hunker Appeals, and V. Ashley Paxton, and Thomas L. Hunker (Ft. 

Lauderdale), for appellant.

Virginia Best, P.A., and Virginia M. Best (Ocala), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals 

from a final judgment rendered in a personal injury protection (“PIP”) action 

in favor of Central Therapy Center, Inc. On appeal, State Farm challenges 

the trial court’s denial of its motion to amend its answer, which was filed 

seven years after the commencement of this action and purported to add 

nine new affirmative defenses. On the specific facts before us, we cannot 

conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, and we affirm the trial 

court’s decision. 

In June 2013, Central Therapy filed suit against State Farm, alleging 

breach of contract for failure to pay PIP benefits incurred for treatment of 

State Farm’s insured, Antonio Garcia. In August of 2013, Central Therapy 

sought and received leave to file an Amended Complaint, and State Farm 

filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint. The case proceeded until 

September 2016, when Central Therapy moved for summary judgment, 

arguing that its bills and treatments were reasonable, related, and medically 

necessary. Almost three years after this filing, in June of 2019, the trial court 

issued a Notice of Lack of Prosecution requiring the parties to appear for a 

hearing in August. Central Therapy filed a notice for trial, so the trial court 
3

entered an order finding good cause not to dismiss the case for lack of 

prosecution. Then, in February 2020, the court scheduled trial.

1 

It was not until July 2020, seven years after its first answer was filed, 

that State Farm moved to file an amended answer. This amended answer 

would add nine new affirmative defenses, going to an argument that Central 

Therapy had submitted false and misleading statements related to the

disputed claims. The trial court denied the motion and entered the final 

judgment that is the subject of this appeal. In its Order on Defendant’s 

Motion for Leave to Amend, the trial court expressly concluded that:

The case was filed in 2013 and the parties have been litigating 

the case and conducting discovery for over 7 years. In July of 

2019 the case was set to be dismissed for lack of prosecution 

and good cause was found . . . this Court set the matter for Jury 

Trial for May of 2020[;] the Court entered its Jury Trial Order 

imposing various deadlines, setting a Calendar Call, and a trial 

period to commence[.] The case was selected for trial because it 

significantly exceeded the Florida Rules of Judicial 

Administration Time Standards, and then unfortunately, the 

Court continued the case due to the Covid19 pandemic. Now in 

September of 2020 after 7 years, the Defendant is asking for 

leave to Amend to include about 9 new issues in the case. This 

Court finds the amendment would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff 

after 7 years of litigating and conducting discovery and that fact 

that the matter was previously set for trial.

1 The trial was originally set for May, was reset by the court for August, and 

was ultimately taken off the court docket due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
4

On the specific facts before us, we cannot find that the trial court 

abused its discretion. See Randle v. Randle, 274 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 

1973) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

appellants’ motion to amend their answer and add a counterclaim, which was 

filed two and one-half years after their original answer and just prior to a 

hearing on a motion for summary judgment); Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d 

946, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint where 

“following two years of contentious litigation, on the proverbial ‘eve’ of the 

summary judgment hearing, immediately preceding the scheduled trial date, 

[plaintiff] sought to inject an entirely novel theory of prosecution into his 

lawsuit”); Efremov v. Motorsport Network, LLC, 357 So. 3d 231, 232 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2023) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying a motion to amend the complaint where, in the last weeks before 

the summary judgment hearing, Appellant sought to add multiple counts 

maintaining that the contract provisions he had relied upon in the litigation 

up to that point in time did not reflect the parties’ intent and must be reformed 

on account of mutual or unilateral mistake); Bronstein v. Allstate Ins. Co., 

315 So. 3d 44, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend the complaint to allege an 
5

alternative theory of recovery, when the case had already been set for trial, 

a motion for summary judgment was pending, and the case was only eight 

days from calendar call); cf. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hialeah Diagnostics, Inc., 

326 So. 3d 800, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (concluding that the trial court 

abused its discretion in denying Geico’s motion for leave to amend its answer 

after five years to add one affirmative defense, defective pre-suit demand); 

GEICO Indem. Co. v. Simply Health Care, Inc., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D725 (Fla. 

3d DCA Apr. 12, 2023) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in 

denying Geico’s motion for leave to amend its answer to add one affirmative 

defense, res judicata or collateral estoppel); GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. A & C 

Med. Ctr., Inc., 357 So. 3d 233, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (holding that the

trial court abused its discretion in denying Geico’s motion for leave to amend 

its answer before the case was set for trial to add one affirmative defense,

res judicata or collateral estoppel); Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Imaging 

Ctr. of W. Palm Beach, LLC, 356 So. 3d 842, 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)

(concluding that trial court abused its discretion in denying Progressive’s 

motion for leave to amend its answer before the case was set for trial, three 

years after filing, and to add two affirmative defenses, where the denial was 

based solely on “bare timing” and not weighed in terms of prejudice, and the 
6

trial court did not consider that the other party’s change in position was what 

necessitated the amendment). 

On the specific facts before us, we cannot find that the trial court 

abused its discretion. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of State 

Farm’s motion to amend. 

Affirmed.