Case Name: PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER A/A/O Louis Pena, Respondent.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-02-09
Citations: 236 So. 3d 1182
Docket Number: Case No. 5D16–2334
Parties: PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER A/A/O Louis Pena, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 236
Pages: 1182–1183

Head Matter:
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER A/A/O Louis Pena, Respondent.
Case No. 5D16-2334
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed February 9, 2018
Douglas H. Stein, of Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Coral Gables, for Petitioner.
Chad A. Barr, of Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Respondent.
Lawrence M. Kopelman, of Lawrence M. Kopelman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale and Mac S. Phillips and Chris Tadros, of Phillips Tadros, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, as Amicus Curiae Floridians for Fair Insurance, Inc.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION TO CERTIFY

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Progressive Select Insurance Company has filed a motion for rehearing and a motion to certify a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court. We grant the motion for rehearing and the motion to certify. We withdraw the previous opinion and substitute the following in its stead.
Progressive petitions this court for a writ of certiorari, seeking to quash an opinion issued by the Circuit Court for Orange County, sitting in its appellate capacity, which affirmed the final judgment entered by the County Court. We deny the petition based upon the reasoning set forth in our opinion in Progressive Select Insurance v. Florida Hospital Medical Center a/a/o Jonathan Parent, No. 5D16-2333, - So.3d -, 2018 WL 792012 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 9, 2018).
We certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance:
WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PIP BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRE
THAT THE DEDUCTIBLE BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CHARGES BEFORE APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736(5)(a)1.b., OR MUST THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION BE APPLIED FIRST AND THE DEDUCTIBLE SUBTRACTED FROM THE REMAINING AMOUNT?
PETITION DENIED and QUESTION CERTIFIED.
SAWAYA and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
PALMER, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, with opinion.