FEDERATED NAT. INS. CO. v. Physicians Charter Services

788 So. 2d 403, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9136, 2001 WL 746651
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 5, 2001
Docket3D00-2094, 3D00-2093, 3D00-2092
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 788 So. 2d 403 (FEDERATED NAT. INS. CO. v. Physicians Charter Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
FEDERATED NAT. INS. CO. v. Physicians Charter Services, 788 So. 2d 403, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9136, 2001 WL 746651 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

788 So.2d 403 (2001)

FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
PHYSICIANS CHARTER SERVICES, Appellee.

Nos. 3D00-2094, 3D00-2093, 3D00-2092.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 5, 2001.

*404 Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans & Abel, and Hinda Klein (Hollywood), for appellant.

Frank E. Amsalem, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the three separate summary judgments rendered in declaratory judgment actions brought by appellee, Physicians Charter Services, Inc. ("PCS"), against appellant, Federated National Insurance Company ("Federated").

PCS is not entitled to recover Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits for magnetic resonance imaging services allegedly provided to Federated's insureds, because PCS does not perform necessary medical services and is not a "physician, hospital, clinic, or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person for a bodily injury covered by PIP insurance." § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2000). There is no provision in Florida's personal injury protection statutes for the payment of policy benefits to a third party who has not performed medical services. Thus the trial court erred in finding Federated liable for payment of PIP benefits to PCS, and in granting the final summary judgments in favor of PCS. Accordingly, the orders below are reversed.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Quality Diagnostic Health Care, Inc.
369 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (S.D. Florida, 2019)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Pressley
28 So. 3d 105 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc. v. Seminole Casualty Insurance
10 So. 3d 1106 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
PROF. CONS. SERV. v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co.
849 So. 2d 446 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Med. Manag. Group of Orlado, Inc. v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Company
811 So. 2d 705 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
788 So. 2d 403, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9136, 2001 WL 746651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federated-nat-ins-co-v-physicians-charter-services-fladistctapp-2001.