Fortune Ins. Co. v. U.S.A. Diagnostics, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 November 1996
• Docket Number: No. 96-0507,96-0507
• Citation: Fortune Ins. Co. v. U.S.A. Diagnostics, Inc., 684 So.2d 208 (Fla. App. 1996)
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2432 FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. U.S.A. DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Appellee. Fourth District
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 208

684 So.2d 208

21 Fla. L. Weekly D2432

FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v.U.S.A. DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Appellee.

No. 96-0507.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fourth District.

Nov. 13, 1996.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 26, 1996.

Diane H. Tutt of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., Plantation, and Harold H. Catlin and Holly J. McCorkle of Saalfield Catlin & Coulson, P.A., Jacksonville, and Carlos Lidsky and Charles L. Vaccaro of The Law Offices of Carlos Lidsky, P.L., Hialeah, for appellant.

Scott D. Sheftall and Steven M. Brady of Floyd Pearson Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh & Russomanno, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order denying Fortune Insurance Company's motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit against it involving PIP claims.

U.S.A. Diagnostics, Inc.(USA)¹ claims that Fortune failed to timely pay PIP claims, as mandated by section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes, and seeks damages, including 10% penalty interest authorized by statute.The lawsuit also seeks treatment as a class action.Fortune asserts that both its insurance policy and section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes, require binding arbitration of claims involving medical benefits arising between insurer and provider where the provider has agreed to accept an assignment of personal injury protection benefits.

The Fortune Insurance policy provides:

Any claims dispute between us[Fortune Insurance Company] and a medical service or supplies provider who has agreed to accept an assignment of benefits shall be decided by arbitration....

Section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:

Every insurer shall include a provision in its policy for personal injury protection benefits for binding arbitration of any claims dispute involving medical benefits arising between the insurer and any person providing medical services or supplies if that person has agreed to accept assignment of personal injury protection benefits.

The trial court determined that the arbitration sought is not governed by section 627.736(5), as the sole dispute is whether Fortune is required to pay a statutory penalty pursuant to section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes, for failure to timely pay PIP benefits.The trial court also concluded that the arbitration provision in section 627.736(5) applies only where the insurance company believes that a health care provider has charged an unreasonable amount.

Arbitration is favored under Florida law, and courts indulge every reasonable presumption to uphold proceedings resulting in an award.Roe v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 533 So.2d 279(Fla.1988).The trial court's role when considering motions to compel arbitration is limited to determining whether a valid written agreement exists, whether an arbitrable issue exists, and whether the right to arbitration was waived.Piercy v. School Board, 576 So.2d 806(Fla. 1st DCA1991).

Section 682.02, Florida Statutes, provides that when parties agree in writing to submit to arbitration any controversy existing between them at the time of the agreement, or include in a written contract a provision for settlement by arbitration of any controversy arising between them...