Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pan Am Diagnostic Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4D21-2156 |
| Citation | 347 So.3d 7 |
| Parties | LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PAN AM DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Pan Am Diagnostic of Orlando a/a/o Claudine Jean, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hinda Klein of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, for appellant.
Douglas H. Stein of Douglas H. Stein, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellee.
Appellant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("the Insurance Company"), appeals the trial court's order awarding attorney's fees and costs together with interest to Appellee, Pan Am Diagnostic Services, Inc. d/b/a Pan Am Diagnostic of Orlando a/a/o Claudine Jean ("the Provider"). Remarkably, suit was filed because 14 cents of statutory interest was not paid when the Insurance Company paid an overdue personal injury protection ("PIP") benefit. The pennies worth of unpaid interest eventually resulted in an award of attorney's fees and costs to the Provider in the amount of $24,028.27. Because we determine that statutory interest payable pursuant to section 627.736(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2019), is not an insurance policy or PIP benefit which entitles an insured or an insured's assignee to attorney's fees under sections 627.428(1) or 627.736(8), Florida Statutes (2019), we reverse.
The Provider, as the insured's assignee, sued the Insurance Company for failure to pay the correct amount of statutory interest due under section 627.736(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2019), when the Insurance Company issued the overdue payment for the Provider's medical services rendered to the insured. The alleged amount of additional interest owed was 14 cents. The complaint also sought attorneys’ fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2019).
The Insurance Company answered that all benefits and interest due and owing were paid presuit. The Insurance Company also raised the affirmative defense of failure to satisfy the condition precedent of providing a presuit demand. The Insurance Company asserted that no attorney's fees or costs were owed because no benefits, interest, penalties, or postage were due at the time the complaint was filed.
The Provider moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that because the Insurance Company failed to pay the correct interest amount on the overdue PIP benefit as required by section 627.736(4)(d), and suit was filed to enforce payment of the correct interest amount, the Provider was entitled to attorney's fees in addition to the 14 cents owed for interest.
The Insurance Company also moved for summary judgment, raising alternative arguments, one of which was that entitlement to attorney's fees under section 627.428 is limited to prosecution of suits which result in recovery of insurance "benefits," and here, the only issue before the trial court was whether the PIP interest constituted a PIP "benefit." The Insurance Company argued that if the interest is deemed a PIP benefit, then a presuit demand letter was a required condition precedent to the filing of the complaint. However, if unpaid interest is not deemed be a PIP benefit, then no PIP benefits were at issue in this suit and the Provider was required to bear its own attorney's fees.
The Provider responded to the Insurance Company's motion, asserting that the statutory requirement to serve a presuit demand letter applied to suits for benefits payment, and not to interest payment. The Provider again maintained its entitlement to attorney's fees, in that a judgment entered in favor of the insured or its assignee in a dispute against the insurer entitles the insured or the assignee to attorney's fees.
The trial court granted the Provider's motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in the Provider's favor for the 14 cents owed for interest, reserving jurisdiction to determine entitlement to attorney's fees. The Provider moved for attorney's fees pursuant to sections 627.736(8) and 627.428, Florida Statutes (2019). The trial court awarded the Provider $24,028.27 in attorney's fees, clerical fees, taxable costs, and an expert witness fee. After the Insurance Company's motion for reconsideration was denied, the Insurance Company gave notice of appeal.
The standard of review of a trial court's ruling on a party's entitlement to attorneys’ fees based on the interpretation of a statute is de novo. S. Fla. Pain & Rehab. of W. Dade v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co. , 318 So. 3d 6, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).
Our analysis begins with section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (2019), which governs entitlement to attorney's fees for insurance litigation regarding policy provisions. Section 627.428(1) provides:
Upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state against an insurer and in favor of any named or omnibus insured or the named beneficiary under a policy or contract executed by the insurer, the trial court or , in the event of an appeal in which the insured or beneficiary prevails, the appellate court shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured's or beneficiary's attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had .
§ 627.428(1), Fla. Stat. (2019) (emphasis added). Under the statute's plain wording, the threshold requirement for an award of fees under section 627.428(1) is "a judgment or decree ... under a policy or contract executed by the insurer." Id.
However, the Provider has not shown that its entitlement to interest on the late payment of PIP benefits is grounded upon any policy or contractual provision.
For PIP litigation, section 627.736(8), Florida Statutes (2019), addresses entitlement to attorney's fees:
Applicability of provision regulating attorney fees. --With respect to any dispute under the provisions of ss. 627.730-627.7405 between the insured and the insurer, or between an assignee of an insured's rights and the insurer, the provisions of ss. 627.428 and 768.79 apply, except as provided in subsections (10) and (15) ....
§ 627.736(8), Fla. Stat. (2019) (emphasis added).1 Thus, to determine entitlement to fees pursuant to section 627.736(8), we are confronted with the meaning of the statutory language, "[w]ith respect to any dispute under the provisions of ss. 627.730-627.7405." Id.
In the first statute in the designated series, the legislature has made it clear that "[s]ections 627.730-627.7405 may be cited and known as the ‘Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.’ " § 627.730, Fla. Stat. (2019). In the second statute in the series, the legislature has defined the purpose of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law:
The purpose of ss. 627.730-627.7405 is to provide for medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits, for motor vehicles required to be registered in this state and, with respect to motor vehicle accidents, a limitation on the right to claim damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience.
§ 627.731, Fla. Stat. (2019) (emphasis added).
The other key statutory sections in the series for our analysis are sections 627.736(1), (4)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes (2019). Section 627.736(1) requires that PIP policies afford three types of benefits: (1) medical benefits; (2) disability benefits; and (3) death benefits. § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). Section 627.736(4) provides that benefits due from an insurer under sections 627.730-627.7405 are primary, except benefits received under any workers’ compensation law. § 627.736(4), Fla. Stat. (2019). Subsection (4)(b) states that benefits are overdue if payment is not made within thirty days after the insurer is furnished written notice of the covered loss and the amount. § 627.736(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2019). Subsection (4)(d) provides that those overdue payments accrue interest, explains the manner for calculating the amount of interest owed, and requires the payment of interest at the time payment of the overdue claim is made. § 627.736(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (2019).
"When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning." Precision Diagnostic, Inc. v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co. , 330 So. 3d 32, 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey , 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931) ). Moreover, "[t]he doctrine of in pari materia is a principle of statutory construction that requires that statutes relating to the same subject or object be construed together to harmonize the statutes and to give effect to the Legislature's intent." Id. ().
Applying the plain language and in para materia principles to sections 627.730, 627.731, and 627.736(1), (4)(b), (4)(d), and (8), we conclude that the statutory entitlement to interest on overdue PIP benefits is not in and of itself a PIP benefit for which attorney's fees are payable under section 627.736(8). In other words, a dispute over whether interest is due or paid in the correct amount is not a dispute as to benefits payable for medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits . Thus, litigation over the payment of interest due on PIP benefits does not trigger entitlement to attorney's fees for the claimant.
Our decision in this case is consistent with our decision in South Florida Pain :
[T]he insurer's alleged obligation to pay penalty and postage was not a covered "benefit" under either the statute or the insured's policy. Section 627.731 states that the covered PIP benefits are "medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits." The statute's language does not expand that definition to include penalty and postage.
318 So. 3d at 11. As we said in South Florida Pain , "[i]f the Legislature had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker Family Chiropractic, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...omitted from its published opinion. That case dealt with Liberty Mutual's underpayment by fourteen cents of interest on an overdue claim. 347 So.3d at 8. However, the opinion does not whether Liberty Mutual paid the overdue claim within 30 days of having received the statutory demand letter......