United Automobile Insurance Company v. Coastal Wellness Center, Inc.
This text of 28 So. 3d 246 (United Automobile Insurance Company v. Coastal Wellness Center, 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.
Opinion
Adopting the reasoning of United Automobile Insurance Co. v. A 1st Choice Healthcare Systems, 21 So.3d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (construing section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), as not imposing a firm deadline for providing an insured or assignee with an “explanation of benefits” (EOB)), we grant the petition for writ of certiorari in part and quash the order and opinion of the circuit court, in its appellate capacity, but only to the extent the circuit court affirmed that portion of the county court’s directed verdict and final judgment in favor of the respondent health care provider on count II of the complaint, for breach of contract for failing to provide an EOB. In all other respects, the petition is denied. Because the one dollar nominal award of damages on Count II was de minimis, and because there is no transcript of the attorney’s fee hearing, Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979), we deny certiorari as to the circuit court’s affirmance of the attorney’s fee award as well.
Petition granted in part and denied in part.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 So. 3d 246, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2538, 2010 WL 711795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-automobile-insurance-company-v-coastal-wellness-center-inc-fladistctapp-2010.