STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC. a/a/o LESDIE CONNER

District Court of Appeal of Florida

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC. a/a/o LESDIE CONNER

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 19, 2023

Docket21-0178

StatusPublished

This text of STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC. a/a/o LESDIE CONNER (STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC. a/a/o LESDIE CONNER) 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

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC. a/a/o LESDIE CONNER, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC., a/a/o LESDIE CONNER, Appellee.

No. 4D21-178

[April 19, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Robert W. Lee, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-12614 COCE (53) and 17-6927 CACE (AP).

Nancy A. Copperthwaite and Marcy Levine Aldrich of Akerman LLP, Miami, for appellant.

David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa, and Theophilos Poulopoulos and Paul G. Kluck of The Schiller Kessler Group, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of a small claims suit brought by Precision Diagnostic, Inc., as assignee of Lesdie Conner (“the Provider”), against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“the Insurer”), alleging that the Insurer did not pay the full amount owed under the policy. In a joint pre-trial stipulation, the parties agreed that “[t]he main issue for the trier of fact is whether the language of State Farm’s 9810A policy, which is the applicable policy in relation to this claim, permits State Farm to limit reimbursement pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Charges.”

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The arguments turned on differing interpretations of the policy language, a matter which has since been put to rest by the Florida Supreme Court. See MRI Assocs. of Tampa, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2021). The trial court entered summary judgment for the Provider. Based on MRI Associates of Tampa, we reverse. The Provider argues that there are remaining disputed factual issues related to the contents of the policy at the time of issuance or renewal that preclude summary judgment. Based on stipulations the parties entered below, we reject the argument. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the Insurer. See Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Back on Track, LLC, 342 So. 3d 779, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC., a/a/o LESDIE CONNER, Appellee.

No. 4D21-178

[April 19, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Robert W. Lee, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-12614 COCE (53) and 17-6927 CACE (AP).

Nancy A. Copperthwaite and Marcy Levine Aldrich of Akerman LLP, Miami, for appellant.

David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa, and Theophilos Poulopoulos and Paul G. Kluck of The Schiller Kessler Group, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of a small claims suit brought by Precision Diagnostic, Inc., as assignee of Lesdie Conner (“the Provider”), against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“the Insurer”), alleging that the Insurer did not pay the full amount owed under the policy. In a joint pre-trial stipulation, the parties agreed that “[t]he main issue for the trier of fact is whether the language of State Farm’s 9810A policy, which is the applicable policy in relation to this claim, permits State Farm to limit reimbursement pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Charges.”

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The arguments turned on differing interpretations of the policy language, a matter which has since been put to rest by the Florida Supreme Court. See MRI Assocs. of Tampa, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2021). The trial court entered summary judgment for the Provider. Based on MRI Associates of Tampa, we reverse. The Provider argues that there are remaining disputed factual issues related to the contents of the policy at the time of issuance or renewal that preclude summary judgment. Based on stipulations the parties entered below, we reject the argument. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the Insurer. See Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Back on Track, LLC, 342 So. 3d 779, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC. a/a/o LESDIE CONNER, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-v-precision-diagnostic-fladistctapp-2023.