FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L 3, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 13 18 3 D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 36 24 -J LK MERLY NUNEZ, a.k .a. Nun ez M erl y , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

(Ap ril 3, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, FAY an d KLEINFELD, Cir cu itJu dg es . *

Honora ble Andrew J
. Kleinfe ld, United S tates C ircuit J udg e for the N i n t h Circuit, sitti ng * by desig nation. Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 1 of 13DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e:

Mer ly Nuñ ez, a cl as s re pr es en ta ti ve , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f he r co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m an d i ts ord er d en y in g h er m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. Nu ñe z arg ue s t ha t ex am in at io ns un de r oa th (“ EUOs”) are im pe rm is si bl e co nd it io ns pre ced en t t o p ers on al in jury pro te ct io n (“ PIP” ) co ve rag e un de r Fl or id a la w andth e Fl or id a No- Fau ltau to m ob il e in su ran ce s ta tu te ba se d o n th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Cu st er Med. Ctr . v. Uni te d Au to . Ins . Co. , 62 So . 3d10 86 , 10 89 n.1 , 10 91 (Fl a. 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ). Geic o In su ran ce Co m pa ny ins is ts th atan y

st at em en ts reg ard in g EUOs by the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt i n Cu st er

were m erel y di cta an d n otco nt ro ll in g. As a res ul t o f va ry in g in te rp ret at io ns of Cu st er

in th e lo wer Fl or id a st at e co urts , we con cl ud e th atFlo rid a la w is un cl ear i n t he co nt ex t o f st atut or il y m an da te d i ns ur an ce an d t he Flo rid a NoFau ltSta tu te an d c ert ify thi s que st io n t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt. I. Nuñ ez i s t he na m edpl ai nt iff an d c la ss rep res en ta ti ve in th is cla ss act io n br ou gh t p ur su an t t o F lo rid a Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 .22 0. Nu ñe z was in a car acci de nton Sep te m

be r 17 , 20 08 , andsu ffer edin juri es . She ha s an in su ran ce po li cy wit h Gei co th atpro vi de s fo r PIP b en efi ts . Whe n s he reque st edpa ym en t o f he r m ed ic al bi ll s p ur su an t t o t he term s o f he r in su ran ce p ol ic y , Geico de ni edhe r 2 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 2 of 13co ve rag e. Sh e al le ge s t ha t s he was d en ie d c ov erag e b ecau se sh e fai le d t o a tt en d

anEUO. Geic o a ss ert s t ha t an EUO is a p rere qu is it e to rece iv in g b en efi ts un de r it s p ol ic y . Nuñ ez fi le d acla ss act io n l aws ui t as se rti ng fou r co un ts ag ai ns t Gei co . The act io n was fil edinst at e co urt o n Oct ob er 2 6, 2 00 9, an d re m ov edto th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a o n Dec em be r 4, 2 00 9,
un de r CAFA, 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 32 (d ). On J an ua ry 7, 2 01 0, Gei co fil eda m ot io n t o di sm is s Nu ñe z’s co m

pl ai ntonall fou r co un ts un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ). The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d Gei co ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s wi th pr ejud ic e o n Ap ril 13 , 20 10 . Nuñ ez fi le d ati m el y

m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n o n M ay 11 , 20 10 , whi ch th e di st ric t co urt d en ie d. Nu ñe z ap pe al s t he di sm is sa l o f co un t t wo o nl y , whi ch ask ed th e d is tri ctco urt t o d et erm in e whe th er Fl or id a’s PIP St atut e, F LA . S T A T . § 62 7.7 36 , perm it s EUOs a s a p rere qu is it e to rece iv in g P IP b en efi ts . The d is tri ct co urt fo un d t ha t t he re was no lan gu ag e in th e PIP s ta tu te pro hi bi ti ng anin su rer fro m requi rin g a n EUO. On Se pt em

be r 8, 2 01 1, Gei co sen t a l ette r to th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t Cl erkof Co urt, p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e 2 8( j), to advi se th is co urt of supp le m en ta l au th or it y . Geico ass ert s t ha t t wo re cen t o pi ni on s fr om th e 3 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 3 of 13App el la te Div is io n o f th e Ele ve nt h J ud ic ia l Ci rcu itCo urt i n a ndforMi am i-Da de

Co un ty, Fl or id a, im

pa ctGeic o’s p os it io n i n t hi s ap pe al : Stat e Far m Fir e & Ca s. Co . v. Su nc ar e Physi ca l Th erap y, In c. , No. 0 8- 64 8 AP (F la . Cir . Ct., J ul y 13 , 20 11 ), an d Uni te d Au to . Ins . Co. v. Di az , 18 Fla . L. W eek ly Sup p. 3 48 a (Fl a. Ci r. Ct ., Feb . 3, 2 01 1) . Bot h c as es di sc us s Cu st er an d c om e to di ffer en t co nc lu si on s o n whe th er EUOs ar e p erm is si bl e co nd it io ns pre ced en t t o t he pa ym en t o f PIP b en efi ts un de r au to m ob il e in su ran ce p ol ic ie s. Gei co fil eda m ot io n t o c ert ify the qu es ti on of Cu st er ’s pre ced en ti al va lu e an d e ffec t t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt, an d we
carr ie d t ha t m ot io n wi th th is cas e. II .

“ Whe re t he re i s d oubtin th e in te rp ret at io n o f st at e la w, a fed eral co urt m ay cert ify the qu es ti on to th e st at e supr em e co urt t o a vo idm ak in g u nn eces sa ry Eri e 1 gu es se s an d t o o fferth e st at e co urt t he op po rtu ni ty to i nt erp retor c ha ng e ex is ti ng la w.” Aut o– Own er

s In s. Co . v. Se. Fl oa ti ng

Dock s, In c. , 63 2 F .3d11 95 , 11 97 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (qu ot in g To bi n v . Mich . Mut . Ins . Co. , 39 8 F .3d12 67 , 12 74 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m )). Two u np ub li sh edFlo rid a st at e co urt d eci si on s d eci de d aft er t he ap pe al in th is cas e cal l i nt o q ue st io n t he effe ctof t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s s ta te m en ts on EUOs in Cu st er . Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. C t. 817, 82 L . Ed. 1188 (1938). 1 4 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 4 of 13A. Cu st er

Med. Ctr . v. Uni te d Au to . Ins . Co. In Cu st er , th e m ed ic al cen te r pr ov id edtre at m en t t o apa ti en t wh os e in juri es were co ve redun de r th e PIP b en efi ts of a n aut om ob il e in su ran ce p ol ic y . Cu st er , 62 So . 3dat 1 08 9. Aft er t he tre at m en t was co m pl et e an d b il ls were s ub m it te d, Uni te d Au to m ob il e In su ran ce Co m pa ny sch edul edtwo in de pe nd en t m ed ic al
ex am in at io ns (“ IMEs ”) fo r th e p at ie nt . Id
. The p at ie ntdi d n otap pe ar fo r ei th er IME, an d Un it edde ni edth e p at ie nt ’s PIP b en efi ts . Id
. The Cu st er laws ui t h ad
no th in g t o d o wi th EUOs bu t t he co urt re fere nc es anEUO in di ct um in on e fo ot no te : The c on cept of a ve rba l ex amina tio n unde r o at h is no t rel ev an t due to the po st ure o f thi s ca se an d po si tio ns of t he pa rti es . The on ly argu m en t i n t hi s ca se at t he tri al co urt, ci rcu itco urt, an d d is tri ct co urt o f ap pe al was b as edup on m ed ic al ex am s an d t he fai lu re t o at te ndm ed ic al ex am s. A purpo rted ve rba l ex am under o at h with ou t co uns el in the PI P con tex t is inv al id an d m or e res tri ct iv e th anpe rm it te d b y

th e st atut or il y

m an da te d c ov erag e an d t he term s an d l im it at io ns pe rm it te d u nd er t he st atut ory pro vi si on s. Th e pr oh ib it io n o f po li cy

ex cl us io ns , li m it at io ns , andno n- st atut ory co nd it io ns on co ve rag e co nt ro ll edby statut e is cle ar.

. . . PIP i ns ur an ce i s m ark ed ly diff eren t fr om

ho m eo wne r's /t en an ts in su ran ce, p ro pe rty ins ur an ce, l ife in su ran ce, an d fi re i ns ur an ce, whi ch are n otsubjec t t o s ta tu to ry pa ram et ers an d a re s im

pl y a m at te r of co nt ractno t s ub

ject t o s ta tu to ry

requi rem en ts . Id
. at 1 08 9, n .1 (c it in g Flo res v. Al ls ta te Ins . Co. , 81 9 S o. 2 d 7 40 , 74 5 (F la . 20 02 )) (em ph as is ad de d) . Sin ce t he refe ren ce t o EUOs is in a fo ot no te an d t he co urt i ts el f
5 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 5 of 13st at es th atEUOs are n otrel ev an t t o the ap pe al in Cu st er , th is foo tn ot e is ob it er

di ct um an d n otbi nd in g o n any cou rt. An EUO is m en ti on edag ai n i n t he pro cedur al hi st ory an d a na lysis sec ti on s of th e Cu st er de ci si on when th e co urt ex pl ai ns why Uni te d p et it io ne d t he Thi rd Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal s fo r certi or ari
. Cu st er , 62 So . 3dat 1 09 1. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re co gn iz edth atth e ci rcu itco urt ap pe ll at e d iv is io n q ua sh edth e ci rcu itco urt’s d eci si on so le ly on t he au th or it y of t wo ca se s t ha t wer e n ot reco nc il ab le : Gri

ff in v. St on ewa ll

Ins . Co., 34 6 S o. 2 d 9 7 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 77 ), an d Goldma n v . St at e Far m Gen. In s. Co ., 66 0 S o. 2 d 3 00 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 95 ). The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt cl ari fie d t he cas es : In Gri ff in , th e Thi rdDis tri ctco ns id eredth e 1 97 5 v ers io n o f th e PIP st atut e, whi ch di d no t

in cl ud e th e “ un re as on ab le ref us al ” pr ov is io n, an d h el d t ha t an in su red 's fa il ur e to co m pl y wit h the co nd it io n pr eced en t o f at te nd an ce ata m ed ic al ex am in at io n c on st itut edgro un ds to en te r jud gm en t fo r th e in su rer. Goldma n in vo lv eda ho meo wn er 's in su ran ce p ol ic y

an d t he in su red 's fa il ur e to att en d an e xa m in at io n un de r oa th pu rs uantto th e co nt ractua l t erm s o f th e p ol ic y , whi ch ha s no ap pl ic at io n i n t he st atut or il y requi redco ve rag e co nt ex t. The Flo ri da No– Faul t st at ute i s manda to ry an d do es no t rec og ni ze su ch a co ndi tio n. It i s th eref or e in va li d a nd co ntra ry to t he st at uto ry terms. Id
. (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) (em ph as is ad de d) . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt was m erel y ou tl in in g t he co m

pl ex pro cedur al hi st ory

of t he cas e whe n i t m en ti on edEUOs in th is co nt ex t. Ho wev er, i n t he foo tn ot e th e co urt d is ti ng ui sh edst atut ory PIP 6 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 6 of 13co ve rag e—a t i ss ue in th is cas e—f ro m ot he r types of i ns ur an ce l ik e h om eo wne rs , fir e, li fe, an d p ro pe rty ins ur an ce t ha t ar e b as edpu rel y on co nt ract . Thatco m

m en t, al on g wi th th e co urt’s s ug ge st io n t ha t t he no -fau ltst atut e is m an da to ry an d d oe s no t re co gn iz e an EUO as a co nd it io n p rece de nt , pu ts th e la w in th is areain qu es ti on . Alt ho ug h t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s s ta te m en ts on EUOs in Cu st er are di cta , at l eas t o ne Flo rid a co urt fi nd s t he de ci si onpe rs ua si ve . Se e Uni te d Au to . In s. Co . v. Diaz , 18 Fla . L. W eek ly Sup p. 3 48 a, at*5 (Fl a. Ci r. Ct ., Feb . 3, 2 01 1) (rel y in g o n Cu st er

an d h ol di ng th atanEUO cann otbe a co nd it io n p rece de ntto pa ym en t o f m ed ic al bi ll s u nd er a PI P in su ran ce p ol ic y ), bu t cf . St at e Farm Fir e & Ca s. Co . v. Su nc ar e Physi ca l Th er ap y, In c., No. 0 8- 64 8 AP, at*5 (Fl a. Ci r. Ct ., Ju ly 13, 2 01 1) (fi nd in g t ha t the EUO sta te m en ts in Cu st er were di cta an d c ou ld
no t b e rel ie d upo n a s p rece de ntan d thu s h ol di ng th atEUOs are p erm is si bl e co nd it io ns pre ced en t t o t he pa ym en t o f PIP b en efi ts un de r au to m ob il e in su ran ce po li ci es inth e St at e o f Fl or id a). To d at e, Dia zis th e o nl y Flo rid a cas e th atcle arl y ho ld s t ha t an EUO cann otbe a co nd it io n p rece de ntto PIP re co ve ry . B. Flo ri da ’s No -Fau lt

St at ut e Und er Fl or id a’s No- Fau ltSta tu te , an i ns ur edis no t ex pr es sl y requi redto at te ndanEUO as a co nd it io n p rece de ntto bri ng in g s ui t ag ai ns t an in su rer t o 7 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 7 of 13reco ve r PIP b en efi ts . Se e F LA . S T A T . § 6 27 .73 6. Lik ewis e, th ere i s n o l an gu ag e in

th e PIP s ta tu te pro hi bi ti ng anin su rer fr om requi rin g a n EUO. Co nd it io ns no t ex pr es sl y ad dr es se d i n ast atut e g ov ern in g i ns ur an ce co ve rag e are subjec t t o atwo pa rt t es t: (1) “ whe th er t he co nd it io n o r ex cl us io n u na m bi gu ou sl y ex cl ud es or li m it s co ve rag e[; ]” and(2) “ whe th er en fo rcem en t o f a s pe ci fic pro vi si onwou ldbe
co nt rary to t he pu rp os e o f th e . . . sta tu te . ” Flo re s v. Al ls ta te Ins . Co. , 81 9 S o. 2 d 74 0, 7 45 (Fl a. 20 02 ). As Gei co po in ts ou t, EUOs ar e co ns is te ntwit h m an y pro vi si on s i n t he NoFau ltSta tu te . Sect io n 6 27 .73 6( 4) st at es th atbe ne fit s fr om anin su rer a re “ du e an d pa y ab le as l os s ac cru es , up on rece ip t o f re as on ab le pr oo f of s uc h l os s . . . .” F LA . S T A T . § 6 27 .73 6( 4) (em

ph as is ad de d) ; se e Amad

or v. Uni te d Au to Ins . Co. , 74 8 So . 2d30 7, 3 08 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 99 ) (ac kn owl ed gi ng th at“ reas on ab le pro of ”
co ul d i nc lu de th e req ui rem en t t ha t an in su redsubm itto anEUO). Sub se ct io n (4 )(h ) of th e st atut e p ro vi de s t ha t b en efi ts are n otdu e und er t he st atut e if th ere i s ev id en ce o f frau d “ adm it te d t o i n aswo rnst at em en t b y th e in su red .” F LA . S T A T . § 62 7.7 36 (4 )(h ). Add it io na ll y , Sect io n 6 27 .41 4( 3) ex pr es sl y au th or iz es in su rers to in cl ud e an y

“ ad di ti on al pro vi si on s n otin co ns is te ntwit h t hi s co de an d wh ic h a re . . . [d]es ire d b y

th e in su rer a ndne it he r pr oh ib it edby law no r in co nf li ctwit h a ny pr ov is io ns requi redto be in cl ud edth erei n.” F LA . S T A T . § 6 27 .41 4( 3)
. 8 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 8 of 13Geic o a rg ue s t ha t EUOs a re p erm it te d a s co nd it io ns pre ced en t t o c ov erag e

un de r th e PIP s ta tu te be cau se th ey m eetth e Flo re s tes t. Yetin Flo re s , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt n ot edth atin de te rm in in g wh ethe r a co nd it io n n otex pr es se d i n t he st atut e is va li d, “ an al og ie s t o c as es in te rp ret in g c ov erag es th atare n otst atut or il y m an da te d, s uc h a s p ro vi si on s i n fi re, l ife , andpro pe rty ins ur an ce p ol ic ie s, m ay no t ne ces sa ril y

be il lu m in at in g i n g ui di ng ou r an al y si s [b ecau se bo th PIP an d
un in su redm ot or is t ar e st atut or il y m an da te d c ov erag es ]. ” Flo re s , 81 9 S o. 2 d a t 74 5. Ma ny of th e cas es cit edby G ei co in it s b rie f, whi le in ge ne ral supp ort an in su rer’s ri gh t t o re qu ire EUOs be fo re p aym en t, d o n otdi rect ly addres s t he EUO pr ob le m at i ss ue be cau se th ey

do no t i nv ol ve st atut or il y requi redco ve rag e. C. Flo ri da Ca se La w Alt ho ug h we b el ie ve th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s s ta te m en ts reg ard in g EUOs in Cu st er

are di cta an d n otbi nd in g, Fl or id a la w is far fr om cle ar. Gei co po in ts to Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt an d i nt erm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co urt d eci si on s t ha t affi rm th e ri gh t o f in su rers to requi re an EUO in c on ne ct io n wi th it s i nv es ti ga ti on of a cl ai m forPIP b en efi ts . Whi le th ere i s a l on g h is to ry of F lo rid a co urts ge ne ral ly affirm in g t he rig htof an i ns ur edto requi re EUOs p rio r to pa ym en t o f be ne fit s, t he se cas es de al wit h i ns ur an ce co nt ract s n otba se d o n s ta tu te . Se e S. Home I ns . Co. v. Pu tn al , 49 So . 92 2, 9 32 (Fl a. 19 09 ) (aff irming th atin su red ’s 9 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 9 of 13refu sa l t o c om pl y with fi re i ns ur an ce p ol ic y co nd it io n tha t i ns ur edsubm itto an ex am in at io n u nd er o ath p recl ud edreco ve ry ); Edw ar ds v. St at e Far m Fla . Ins . Co. , 64 So . 3d73 0, 7 32 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 11 ) (aff irming su m

m ary jud gm en t fo r in su rer o n g ro un d t ha t i ns ur edfai le d t o c om pl y wit h p re-s ui t re qu ire m en t o f
subm it ti ng to EUO in p ro pe rty ins ur an ce co nt ract ); Gon za le z v. Sta te Farm Fla
. In s. Co ., 65 So . 3d60 8, 6 09 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 11 ) (s am e); Goldma n v . St at e Farm Fir e Gen . Ins . Co., 66 0 S o. 2 d 3 00 , 30 3 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 95 ) (aff irming th at“ anin su red ’s refu sa l t o c om pl y wit h ade m an d fo r an ex am in at io n u nd er o ath is a wil lfu l an d m at eri al bre ach of [ a h om eo wne r’s] ins ur an ce co nt ractwhi ch pr ecl ud es th e in su redfro m reco ve ry un de r th e p ol ic y ”). Bec au se th e co urt i n Cu st er su gg es te d t ha t anEUO is n ota co nd it io n pr eced en t t o P IP co ve rag e an d d is ti ng ui sh edEUO case s u nd er PIP wit h s ta tu to ril y m an da te d c ov erag e fro m

ot he r types of c ov erag e th atare n otst atut or il y m an da te d, th e d eci si on su gg es ts th atanEUO is n ota co nd it io n p rece de ntto PIP co ve rag e. Abs en t a c le ar d eci si on fro m th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt o n t hi s i ss ue , “ we are bo un d t o fo ll ow d eci si on s o f th e st at e’s in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co urts un le ss th ere is so m e p ers ua si ve in di cat io n t ha t t he hi gh es t co urt o f th e st at e wou ldde ci de th e is su e d iff eren tl y .” McMa ha n v . Tot o , 31 1 F .3d10 77 , 10 80 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h as sp eci fic al ly app ro ve d t hi s ru le by hol di ng th at“ [t]he 10 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 10 of 13de ci si on s o f th e d is tri ctco urts of app eal rep res en t the law o f Fl or id a u nl es s an d

un ti l t he y are o ve rru le d b y

[th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt].” Id
. (qu ot in g Par do v. St at e , 59 6 S o. 2 d 6 65 , 66 6 (F la . 19 92 )). The Flo rid a ap pe ll at e co urts ha ve no t d eci si ve ly rule d o n thi s i ss ue . The
on ly case t ha t d is cu ss es th e ri gh t o f an in su rer t o re qu ire th e in su redto subm itto anEUO in t he st atut ory

co nt ex t as a co nd it io n p rece de ntto co ve rag e is Sh aw v. St at e Far m Fir e & Ca s. Co
. , 37 So . 3d32 9 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ), de ci de d s ix m on th s b efo re Cu st er . In Sh aw , th e is su e b efo re the co urt was whe th er an EUO clau se inanau to m ob il e in su ran ce p ol ic y was b in di ng onan as si gn ee o f th e ri gh t t o p aym en t o f no -fau ltbe ne fit s, an d t he co urt h el d tha t an as si gn ee m ed ic al pro vi de r is no t re qu ire d t o s ub m itto anEUO. Id
. at 3 35 . Befo re reac hi ng th atco nc lu si on , th e co urt s ta te d t ha t “ [i]t i s u nd is pu te d t ha t a p ro vi si on in
anin su ran ce p ol ic y

th atrequi res th e in su redto subm itto anEUO qu al ifi es as a co nd it io n p rece de ntto reco ve ry of p ol ic y be ne fit s.” Id

. at33 1. Be cau se th e de ci si on was n otun an im ou s an d t he co urt tho ug htth e is su e h ada wid e-ra ng in g im pa ct , th e co urt ce rti fie d t he fol lo win g q ue st io n t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt:

“ Whe th er a h eal th care pro vi de r who acce pt s an ass ig nm en t o f no -fau ltin su ran ce pr oc eed s i n p aym en t o f se rv ic es pro vi de d t o a n i ns ur edcanbe requi redby a pr ov is io n i n t he po li cy

to subm itto anex am in at io n u nd er o ath a s a c on di ti on to

11 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 11 of 13th e ri gh t o f pa ym en t? ” Id
. at33 5. Th atqu es ti on ha s n oty etbe enan swe redby the

Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. The co urt i n Sh aw cl earl y st at edth atanEUO is a c on di ti on pre ced en t t o reco ve ry of b en efi ts if t he in su ran ce p ol ic y requi res th e in su redto subm itto an EUO. Id
. at 3 31 . Howev er, the co urt d idno t d is ti ng ui sh th e st atut ory co ve rag e at is su e in th atcas e fro m

ot he r types of i ns ur an ce l ik e th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d id in di cta in Cu st er . Ind eed , th e co urt i n Sh aw cit edth e sa m e cas es Geic o re li es on he re t o s up po rt t he po si ti on th atEUOs are v al idco nd it io ns pre ced en t u nd er Fl or id a la w, no ne of wh ic h d ire ct ly app ly to s ta tu to ril y -impos edco ve rag e. Bas ed
on th e di cta in Cu st er , itco ul d b e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt m ay no t fo ll ow th e ap pe ll at e co urt’s s ta te m en t i n Sh aw . The in te rp ret at io n o f th e Fl or id a No- Fau lt St atut e is a qu es ti on of s ta te law t ha t h as no t b een sp eci fic al ly addres se d b y th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt o r th e in te rm ed ia te st at e ap pe ll at e co urts . II I. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d el ay fin al jud gm en t i n t hi s ca se un ti l t he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h as ha d an o pp ortu ni ty to co ns id er wh ethe r an in su rer c an requi re an in su redto subm itto anEUO as a co nd it io n p rece de ntto reco ve ry of P IP be ne fit s u nd er t he Flo rid a No- Fau ltSta tu te . Rath er t ha n a tt em pt in g a n Eri e

“ gu es s” as t o h ow t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt wo ul d ru le on th is is su e, we cert ify 12 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 12 of 13th e fo ll owi ng qu es ti on to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, p ur su an t t o F la . Con st . art .

V, § 3 (b )(6 ). Se e Pen de rg as t v. S pr in t Ne xt el Co rp . , 59 2 F .3d11 19 , 11 43 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ): Whe th er, u nd er F LA . S T A T . § 6 27 .73 6, anin su rer c anrequi re an

in su redto att en d a n EUO as a co nd it io n p rece de ntto reco ve ry of P IP be ne fit s? The an swe r to th is qu es ti on wil l as si stth is co urt i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r Nuñ ez was requi redto subm itto anEUO pri orto fil in g s ui t ag ai ns t Gei co . To faci li ta te th e res ol ut io n o f th is qu es ti on , we di rectth e Cl erkto trans m itth e en ti re reco rdof t hi s ca se , to ge th er wi th co pi es of t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Of co ur se , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt i s i n n o way lim it edby our qu es ti on an d m ay

co ns id er t he cas e as itsee s fi t. QUESTION CERTIFIED.

13

Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 13 of 13