STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CENTRAL THERAPY CENTER, INC., a/a/o ANTONIO GARCIA
This text of STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CENTRAL THERAPY CENTER, INC., a/a/o ANTONIO GARCIA (STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CENTRAL THERAPY CENTER, INC., a/a/o ANTONIO GARCIA) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 24, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1758 Lower Tribunal No. 13-3968 CC ________________
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant,
vs.
Central Therapy Center, Inc., a/a/o Antonio Garcia, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michaelle Gonzalez-Paulson, Judge.
Hunker Appeals, and V. Ashley Paxton, and Thomas L. Hunker (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.
Virginia Best, P.A., and Virginia M. Best (Ocala), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals
from a final judgment rendered in a personal injury protection (“PIP”) action
in favor of Central Therapy Center, Inc. On appeal, State Farm challenges
the trial court’s denial of its motion to amend its answer, which was filed
seven years after the commencement of this action and purported to add
nine new affirmative defenses. On the specific facts before us, we cannot
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, and we affirm the trial
court’s decision.
In June 2013, Central Therapy filed suit against State Farm, alleging
breach of contract for failure to pay PIP benefits incurred for treatment of
State Farm’s insured, Antonio Garcia. In August of 2013, Central Therapy
sought and received leave to file an Amended Complaint, and State Farm
filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint. The case proceeded until
September 2016, when Central Therapy moved for summary judgment,
arguing that its bills and treatments were reasonable, related, and medically
necessary. Almost three years after this filing, in June of 2019, the trial court
issued a Notice of Lack of Prosecution requiring the parties to appear for a
hearing in August. Central Therapy filed a notice for trial, so the trial court
2 entered an order finding good cause not to dismiss the case for lack of
prosecution. Then, in February 2020, the court scheduled trial. 1
It was not until July 2020, seven years after its first answer was filed,
that State Farm moved to file an amended answer. This amended answer
would add nine new affirmative defenses, going to an argument that Central
Therapy had submitted false and misleading statements related to the
disputed claims. The trial court denied the motion and entered the final
judgment that is the subject of this appeal. In its Order on Defendant’s
Motion for Leave to Amend, the trial court expressly concluded that:
The case was filed in 2013 and the parties have been litigating the case and conducting discovery for over 7 years. In July of 2019 the case was set to be dismissed for lack of prosecution and good cause was found . . . this Court set the matter for Jury Trial for May of 2020[;] the Court entered its Jury Trial Order imposing various deadlines, setting a Calendar Call, and a trial period to commence[.] The case was selected for trial because it significantly exceeded the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Time Standards, and then unfortunately, the Court continued the case due to the Covid19 pandemic. Now in September of 2020 after 7 years, the Defendant is asking for leave to Amend to include about 9 new issues in the case. This Court finds the amendment would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff after 7 years of litigating and conducting discovery and that fact that the matter was previously set for trial.
1 The trial was originally set for May, was reset by the court for August, and was ultimately taken off the court docket due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
3 On the specific facts before us, we cannot find that the trial court
abused its discretion. See Randle v. Randle, 274 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA
1973) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
appellants’ motion to amend their answer and add a counterclaim, which was
filed two and one-half years after their original answer and just prior to a
hearing on a motion for summary judgment); Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d
946, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint where
“following two years of contentious litigation, on the proverbial ‘eve’ of the
summary judgment hearing, immediately preceding the scheduled trial date,
[plaintiff] sought to inject an entirely novel theory of prosecution into his
lawsuit”); Efremov v. Motorsport Network, LLC, 357 So. 3d 231, 232 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2023) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying a motion to amend the complaint where, in the last weeks before
the summary judgment hearing, Appellant sought to add multiple counts
maintaining that the contract provisions he had relied upon in the litigation
up to that point in time did not reflect the parties’ intent and must be reformed
on account of mutual or unilateral mistake); Bronstein v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
315 So. 3d 44, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend the complaint to allege an
4 alternative theory of recovery, when the case had already been set for trial,
a motion for summary judgment was pending, and the case was only eight
days from calendar call); cf. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hialeah Diagnostics, Inc.,
326 So. 3d 800, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (concluding that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying Geico’s motion for leave to amend its answer
after five years to add one affirmative defense, defective pre-suit demand);
GEICO Indem. Co. v. Simply Health Care, Inc., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D725 (Fla.
3d DCA Apr. 12, 2023) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying Geico’s motion for leave to amend its answer to add one affirmative
defense, res judicata or collateral estoppel); GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. A & C
Med. Ctr., Inc., 357 So. 3d 233, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (holding that the
trial court abused its discretion in denying Geico’s motion for leave to amend
its answer before the case was set for trial to add one affirmative defense,
res judicata or collateral estoppel); Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Imaging
Ctr. of W. Palm Beach, LLC, 356 So. 3d 842, 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
(concluding that trial court abused its discretion in denying Progressive’s
motion for leave to amend its answer before the case was set for trial, three
years after filing, and to add two affirmative defenses, where the denial was
based solely on “bare timing” and not weighed in terms of prejudice, and the
5 trial court did not consider that the other party’s change in position was what
necessitated the amendment).
On the specific facts before us, we cannot find that the trial court
abused its discretion. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of State
Farm’s motion to amend.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CENTRAL THERAPY CENTER, INC., a/a/o ANTONIO GARCIA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-v-central-therapy-center-fladistctapp-2023.