Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Nu-Best Diagnostic Labs, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Nu-Best Diagnostic Labs, Inc.

810 So. 2d 514, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10922

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2001

DocketNos. 5D00-987, 5D00-1387 and 5D00-1482

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 810 So. 2d 514 (Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Nu-Best Diagnostic Labs, Inc.) 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

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Nu-Best Diagnostic Labs, Inc., 810 So. 2d 514, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10922 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, C.J.

This consolidated appeal is based on orders certified to be of great public importance by the county court. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company seeks review of orders determining that it may not defend against personal injury protection (PIP) claims of Nationwide’s insureds because Nationwide did not timely obtain reasonable proof that the medical procedures were unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to the motor vehicle accidents. The various insureds in the consolidated cases assigned their rights under their PIP policies to appellee Nu Best Diagnostic Labs. This court has jurisdiction.¹

On the merits, we reverse the judgments in favor of Nu Best. See Gurney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 5D00-3775 (Fla. 5th DCA July 6, 2001); Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 694 So.2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The trial court rightly perceived a conflict between our opinion in Jones and the opinion of the third district in Perez v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 746 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), rev. granted, United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 767 So.2d 464 (Fla.2000). The court chose to follow Perez but should have followed Jones. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, C.J.

This consolidated appeal is based on orders certified to be of great public importance by the county court. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company seeks review of orders determining that it may not defend against personal injury protection (PIP) claims of Nationwide’s insureds because Nationwide did not timely obtain reasonable proof that the medical procedures were unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to the motor vehicle accidents. The various insureds in the consolidated cases assigned their rights under their PIP policies to appellee Nu Best Diagnostic Labs. This court has jurisdiction.¹

On the merits, we reverse the judgments in favor of Nu Best. See Gurney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 5D00-3775 (Fla. 5th DCA July 6, 2001); Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 694 So.2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The trial court rightly perceived a conflict between our opinion in Jones and the opinion of the third district in Perez v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 746 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), rev. granted, United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 767 So.2d 464 (Fla.2000). The court chose to follow Perez but should have followed Jones. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

810 So. 2d 514, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nationwide-mutual-insurance-v-nu-best-diagnostic-labs-inc-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack