Court Opinion

ID: 9387952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 15:03:36.317879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:16.324081
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
                        Appellant,

                                      v.

       PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC., a/a/o LESDIE CONNER,
                          Appellee.

                               No. 4D21-178

                               [April 19, 2023]

   Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Robert W. Lee, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-12614 COCE (53)
and 17-6927 CACE (AP).

  Nancy A. Copperthwaite and Marcy Levine Aldrich of Akerman LLP,
Miami, for appellant.

  David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa, and
Theophilos Poulopoulos and Paul G. Kluck of The Schiller Kessler Group,
PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

    This appeal arises out of a small claims suit brought by Precision
Diagnostic, Inc., as assignee of Lesdie Conner (“the Provider”), against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“the Insurer”),
alleging that the Insurer did not pay the full amount owed under the policy.
In a joint pre-trial stipulation, the parties agreed that “[t]he main issue for
the trier of fact is whether the language of State Farm’s 9810A policy,
which is the applicable policy in relation to this claim, permits State Farm
to limit reimbursement pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Charges.”

    Both parties moved for summary judgment. The arguments turned on
differing interpretations of the policy language, a matter which has since
been put to rest by the Florida Supreme Court. See MRI Assocs. of Tampa,
Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2021). The trial
court entered summary judgment for the Provider. Based on MRI
Associates of Tampa, we reverse.
   The Provider argues that there are remaining disputed factual issues
related to the contents of the policy at the time of issuance or renewal that
preclude summary judgment. Based on stipulations the parties entered
below, we reject the argument. We reverse the summary judgment and
remand for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the
Insurer. See Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Back on Track, LLC, 342 So. 3d
779, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

   Reversed and remanded with instructions.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                            *         *        *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                      2