Kahn v. State, Office of Insurance Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kahn v. State, Office of Insurance Regulation

881 So. 2d 699, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13328, 2004 WL 1969687

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-5062

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 881 So. 2d 699 (Kahn v. State, Office of Insurance Regulation) 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

Kahn v. State, Office of Insurance Regulation, 881 So. 2d 699, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13328, 2004 WL 1969687 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, David S. Kahn, appeals an order of the Office of Insurance Regulation (“OIR”) dismissing his petition for declaratory statement because OIR does not have substantive jurisdiction and the petition seeks approval or disapproval of conduct that already occurred. Because the appellant’s petition essentially challenges the correctness of OIR’s approved rate increase to his single-life, small group HMO plan, we agree with OIR that the petition for declaratory statement should be dismissed. See B.J.L. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 558 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(ruling that a “petition for declaratory statement under Section 120.565 is not the appropriate means to challenge agency decisions”). Therefore, we affirm, without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a petition pursuant to sections 120.569 and/or 120.57, Florida Statutes.¹

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, David S. Kahn, appeals an order of the Office of Insurance Regulation (“OIR”) dismissing his petition for declaratory statement because OIR does not have substantive jurisdiction and the petition seeks approval or disapproval of conduct that already occurred. Because the appellant’s petition essentially challenges the correctness of OIR’s approved rate increase to his single-life, small group HMO plan, we agree with OIR that the petition for declaratory statement should be dismissed. See B.J.L. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 558 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(ruling that a “petition for declaratory statement under Section 120.565 is not the appropriate means to challenge agency decisions”). Therefore, we affirm, without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a petition pursuant to sections 120.569 and/or 120.57, Florida Statutes.¹

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

881 So. 2d 699, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13328, 2004 WL 1969687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahn-v-state-office-of-insurance-regulation-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack