USAA General Indemnity Co. v. Emergency Physicians Central

District Court of Appeal of Florida

USAA General Indemnity Co. v. Emergency Physicians Central

186 So. 3d 588, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2460, 2016 WL 671997

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 19, 2016·No. No. 5D15-956·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant certiorari, quash the circuit court’s February 17, 2015 opinion on rehearing and remand to the circuit court for [589] further proceedings. See Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Emergency Physicians of Cent. Fla., 182 So.3d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“The plain language of [the relevant statutes is] ... not in conflict and provides that, where an emergency service provider submits its claims within .the 30-day reserve period provided in section 627.736(4)(c), those claims will be prioritized for payment; however, any such payment will be subject to any deductibles that exist in the insurance contract between the insured and the insurer. Under these circumstances it was a departure from the essential requirements of the law for the circuit court to affirm the county court’s order.”).

PETITION GRANTED; OPINION QUASHED; CAUSE REMANDED. '

LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and ’. WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We grant certiorari, quash the circuit court’s February 17, 2015 opinion on rehearing and remand to the circuit court for [589] further proceedings. See Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Emergency Physicians of Cent. Fla., 182 So.3d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“The plain language of [the relevant statutes is] ... not in conflict and provides that, where an emergency service provider submits its claims within .the 30-day reserve period provided in section 627.736(4)(c), those claims will be prioritized for payment; however, any such payment will be subject to any deductibles that exist in the insurance contract between the insured and the insurer. Under these circumstances it was a departure from the essential requirements of the law for the circuit court to affirm the county court’s order.”).

PETITION GRANTED; OPINION QUASHED; CAUSE REMANDED. '

LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and ’. WALLIS, JJ., concur.

USAA General Indemnity Co. v. Emergency Physicians Central, 186 So. 3d 588, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2460, 2016 WL 671997 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

186 So. 3d 588 (USAA General Indemnity Co. v. Emergency Physicians Central) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related