### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
, Appellant,

v.

BAUM CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC PA a/a/o ROSARIO ORTUNO
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 84

[ June 30, 2021]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Mardi Levey Cohen , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 062014SC002823AXXXCE and 062018AP019208AXCCCE

.

Nancy W. Gregoire of Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Todd L andau of Todd Landau, P.A. Hollywood, for appellee.

K UNTZ , J

. 1

State Farm Mutual Insurance Company appeals a final judgment

entered in favor of Baum Chiropractic Clinic PA

. The sole issue on appeal is whether the county court abused its discretion when it denied State

Farm’s motion to amend its answer and add affirmative defenses. We

affirm.

In 2014, Baum Chiropractic filed a c omplaint alleging breach of contract against St ate Farm. State Farm answered the c omplaint but did not assert any affirmative defenses.

More than four years later, the court entered an order setting trial. The order required the parties to file a joint pretrial stipulation. The parties

1 The case caption on the Notice of Appeal calls the appellee “Baum Chiropractic, P.A. a/a/o Rosario Ortuno. ” But the case caption on the final judgment on appeal refers to the appellee as “Baum Chiropractic Clinic PA.” For purposes of this opinion, we use the appellee’s name as it appears on the final judgment.2 did so and a greed that “[t]he lawsuit involve[d] a determination of whether the treatment rendered by [Baum Chiropractic] was related to the motor vehicle accident, [was] medical ly necessary, and reasonable in price.”

Six days before trial, State Farm moved for leave to amend its answer

and add several affirmative defenses. State Farm wanted to amend its

answer to add that: it could set

- off PIP payments made pre

- suit for

services not found reasonable , related, or medically necessary ; Baum Chiropractic’s claim s w ere barred by section 627.736(5)(b)(1)(c), Florida

Statutes because it submitted bills for treatments not actually rendered ; Baum Chiropractic upcoded CPT codes; Baum Chiropractic unbundled services; and Baum Chiropractic failed to s end the appropriate pre

- suit

demand letters. F inding Baum Chiropractic would suffer prejudice, the

court denied State Farm’s motion.

While “[t]he Florida Rules of Civil Procedure encourage a policy of liberality in allowing litigants to amend their plead ings,” Morgan v. Bank of New York Mellon , 200 So. 3d 792, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) , this “policy”

narrows as a case approaches trial. See, e.g.

, Horacio O. Ferrea N. Am. Div., Inc. v. Moroso Performance Prods

. , Inc. , 553 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (“[T]he record supports the trial court’s findings that [defendant]’s amendment would concern matters that were known to it for

a l o ng, long time and that the plaintiff would be prejudiced since they had not been able to conduct any discovery or prepare a defense to [defendant]’s assertions.”)

.

The policy of allowing amendment also requires a court to consider

whether the non

- moving party would be prejudiced by the proposed

amendment. Dimick v. Ray , 774 So. 2d 830, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“ [T] he trial court must liberally allow amendments to a complaint unless the defendant would be ‘prejudiced’ thereby.”).

For more than four years, the primary issues in this litigation related to the reasonableness of Baum Chiropractic’s charges and State Farm’s reimbursement method. Yet State Farm sought to change the primary issues six days before trial. On these facts

, we cannot conclude the county

court abused its discretion when it denied State Farm’s motion to amend

its answer

.

The county court’s order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN and A RTAU , JJ., concur.3 * * *

Not final until disposit ion of timely filed motion for rehearing.