Florida Statute 627.736 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXVII
INSURANCE

Chapter 627
INSURANCE RATES AND CONTRACTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 627.736

627.736 Required personal injury protection benefits; exclusions; priority; claims.—

(1) REQUIRED BENEFITS.—An insurance policy complying with the security requirements of s. 627.733 must provide personal injury protection to the named insured, relatives residing in the same household unless excluded under s. 627.747, persons operating the insured motor vehicle, passengers in the motor vehicle, and other persons struck by the motor vehicle and suffering bodily injury while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle, subject to subsection (2) and paragraph (4)(e), to a limit of $10,000 in medical and disability benefits and $5,000 in death benefits resulting from bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as follows:

(a) Medical benefits.—Eighty percent of all reasonable expenses for medically necessary medical, surgical, X-ray, dental, and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices and medically necessary ambulance, hospital, and nursing services if the individual receives initial services and care pursuant to subparagraph 1. within 14 days after the motor vehicle accident. The medical benefits provide reimbursement only for:

1. Initial services and care that are lawfully provided, supervised, ordered, or prescribed by a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, a dentist licensed under chapter 466, a chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, or an advanced practice registered nurse registered under s. 464.0123 or that are provided in a hospital or in a facility that owns, or is wholly owned by, a hospital. Initial services and care may also be provided by a person or entity licensed under part III of chapter 401 which provides emergency transportation and treatment.

2. Upon referral by a provider described in subparagraph 1., followup services and care consistent with the underlying medical diagnosis rendered pursuant to subparagraph 1. which may be provided, supervised, ordered, or prescribed only by a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, a chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, a dentist licensed under chapter 466, or an advanced practice registered nurse registered under s. 464.0123, or, to the extent permitted by applicable law and under the supervision of such physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, or dentist, by a physician assistant licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed under chapter 464. Followup services and care may also be provided by the following persons or entities:

a. A hospital or ambulatory surgical center licensed under chapter 395.

b. An entity wholly owned by one or more physicians licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, chiropractic physicians licensed under chapter 460, advanced practice registered nurses registered under s. 464.0123, or dentists licensed under chapter 466 or by such practitioners and the spouse, parent, child, or sibling of such practitioners.

c. An entity that owns or is wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by a hospital or hospitals.

d. A physical therapist licensed under chapter 486, based upon a referral by a provider described in this subparagraph.

e. A health care clinic licensed under part X of chapter 400 which is accredited by an accrediting organization whose standards incorporate comparable regulations required by this state, or

(I) Has a medical director licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, or chapter 460;

(II) Has been continuously licensed for more than 3 years or is a publicly traded corporation that issues securities traded on an exchange registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission as a national securities exchange; and

(III) Provides at least four of the following medical specialties:

(A) General medicine.

(B) Radiography.

(D) Physical medicine.

(E) Physical therapy.

(F) Physical rehabilitation.

(G) Prescribing or dispensing outpatient prescription medication.

(H) Laboratory services.

3. Reimbursement for services and care provided in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. up to $10,000 if a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, a dentist licensed under chapter 466, a physician assistant licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed under chapter 464 has determined that the injured person had an emergency medical condition.

4. Reimbursement for services and care provided in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. is limited to $2,500 if a provider listed in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. determines that the injured person did not have an emergency medical condition.

5. Medical benefits do not include massage therapy as defined in s. 480.033 or acupuncture as defined in s. 457.102, regardless of the person, entity, or licensee providing massage therapy or acupuncture, and a licensed massage therapist or licensed acupuncturist may not be reimbursed for medical benefits under this section.

6. The Financial Services Commission shall adopt by rule the form that must be used by an insurer and a health care provider specified in sub-subparagraph 2.b., sub-subparagraph 2.c., or sub-subparagraph 2.e. to document that the health care provider meets the criteria of this paragraph. Such rule must include a requirement for a sworn statement or affidavit.

(b) Disability benefits.—Sixty percent of any loss of gross income and loss of earning capacity per individual from inability to work proximately caused by the injury sustained by the injured person, plus all expenses reasonably incurred in obtaining from others ordinary and necessary services in lieu of those that, but for the injury, the injured person would have performed without income for the benefit of his or her household. All disability benefits payable under this provision must be paid at least every 2 weeks.

(c) Death benefits.—Death benefits of $5,000 per individual. Death benefits are in addition to the medical and disability benefits provided under the insurance policy. The insurer may pay death benefits to the executor or administrator of the deceased, to any of the deceased’s relatives by blood, legal adoption, or marriage, or to any person appearing to the insurer to be equitably entitled to such benefits.

Only insurers writing motor vehicle liability insurance in this state may provide the required benefits of this section, and such insurer may not require the purchase of any other motor vehicle coverage other than the purchase of property damage liability coverage as required by s. 627.7275 as a condition for providing such benefits. Insurers may not require that property damage liability insurance in an amount greater than $10,000 be purchased in conjunction with personal injury protection. Such insurers shall make benefits and required property damage liability insurance coverage available through normal marketing channels. An insurer writing motor vehicle liability insurance in this state who fails to comply with such availability requirement as a general business practice violates part IX of chapter 626, and such violation constitutes an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice involving the business of insurance. An insurer committing such violation is subject to the penalties provided under that part, as well as those provided elsewhere in the insurance code.

(2) AUTHORIZED EXCLUSIONS.—Any insurer may exclude benefits:

(a) For injury sustained by the named insured and relatives residing in the same household while occupying another motor vehicle owned by the named insured and not insured under the policy or for injury sustained by any person operating the insured motor vehicle without the express or implied consent of the insured.

(b) To any injured person, if such person’s conduct contributed to his or her injury under any of the following circumstances:

1. Causing injury to himself or herself intentionally; or

2. Being injured while committing a felony.

Whenever an insured is charged with conduct as set forth in subparagraph 2., the 30-day payment provision of paragraph (4)(b) shall be held in abeyance, and the insurer shall withhold payment of any personal injury protection benefits pending the outcome of the case at the trial level. If the charge is nolle prossed or dismissed or the insured is acquitted, the 30-day payment provision shall run from the date the insurer is notified of such action.

(3) INSURED’S RIGHTS TO RECOVERY OF SPECIAL DAMAGES IN TORT CLAIMS.—No insurer shall have a lien on any recovery in tort by judgment, settlement, or otherwise for personal injury protection benefits, whether suit has been filed or settlement has been reached without suit. An injured party who is entitled to bring suit under the provisions of ss. 627.730-627.7405, or his or her legal representative, shall have no right to recover any damages for which personal injury protection benefits are paid or payable. The plaintiff may prove all of his or her special damages notwithstanding this limitation, but if special damages are introduced in evidence, the trier of facts, whether judge or jury, shall not award damages for personal injury protection benefits paid or payable. In all cases in which a jury is required to fix damages, the court shall instruct the jury that the plaintiff shall not recover such special damages for personal injury protection benefits paid or payable.

(4) PAYMENT OF BENEFITS.—Benefits due from an insurer under ss. 627.730-627.7405 are primary, except that benefits received under any workers’ compensation law must be credited against the benefits provided by subsection (1) and are due and payable as loss accrues upon receipt of reasonable proof of such loss and the amount of expenses and loss incurred which are covered by the policy issued under ss. 627.730-627.7405. If the Agency for Health Care Administration provides, pays, or becomes liable for medical assistance under the Medicaid program related to injury, sickness, disease, or death arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, the benefits under ss. 627.730-627.7405 are subject to the Medicaid program. However, within 30 days after receiving notice that the Medicaid program paid such benefits, the insurer shall repay the full amount of the benefits to the Medicaid program.

(a) An insurer may require written notice to be given as soon as practicable after an accident involving a motor vehicle with respect to which the policy affords the security required by ss. 627.730-627.7405.

(b) Personal injury protection insurance benefits paid pursuant to this section are overdue if not paid within 30 days after the insurer is furnished written notice of the fact of a covered loss and of the amount of same. However:

1. If written notice of the entire claim is not furnished to the insurer, any partial amount supported by written notice is overdue if not paid within 30 days after written notice is furnished to the insurer. Any part or all of the remainder of the claim that is subsequently supported by written notice is overdue if not paid within 30 days after written notice is furnished to the insurer.

2. If an insurer pays only a portion of a claim or rejects a claim, the insurer shall provide at the time of the partial payment or rejection an itemized specification of each item that the insurer had reduced, omitted, or declined to pay and any information that the insurer desires the claimant to consider related to the medical necessity of the denied treatment or to explain the reasonableness of the reduced charge if this does not limit the introduction of evidence at trial. The insurer must also include the name and address of the person to whom the claimant should respond and a claim number to be referenced in future correspondence.

3. If an insurer pays only a portion of a claim or rejects a claim due to an alleged error in the claim, the insurer, at the time of the partial payment or rejection, shall provide an itemized specification or explanation of benefits due to the specified error. Upon receiving the specification or explanation, the person making the claim, at the person’s option and without waiving any other legal remedy for payment, has 15 days to submit a revised claim, which shall be considered a timely submission of written notice of a claim.

4. Notwithstanding the fact that written notice has been furnished to the insurer, payment is not overdue if the insurer has reasonable proof that the insurer is not responsible for the payment.

5. For the purpose of calculating the extent to which benefits are overdue, payment shall be treated as being made on the date a draft or other valid instrument that is equivalent to payment was placed in the United States mail in a properly addressed, postpaid envelope or, if not so posted, on the date of delivery.

6. This paragraph does not preclude or limit the ability of the insurer to assert that the claim was unrelated, was not medically necessary, or was unreasonable or that the amount of the charge was in excess of that permitted under, or in violation of, subsection (5). Such assertion may be made at any time, including after payment of the claim or after the 30-day period for payment set forth in this paragraph.

(c) Upon receiving notice of an accident that is potentially covered by personal injury protection benefits, the insurer must reserve $5,000 of personal injury protection benefits for payment to physicians licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 or dentists licensed under chapter 466 who provide emergency services and care, as defined in s. 395.002, or who provide hospital inpatient care. The amount required to be held in reserve may be used only to pay claims from such physicians or dentists until 30 days after the date the insurer receives notice of the accident. After the 30-day period, any amount of the reserve for which the insurer has not received notice of such claims may be used by the insurer to pay other claims. The time periods specified in paragraph (b) for payment of personal injury protection benefits are tolled for the period of time that an insurer is required to hold payment of a claim that is not from such physician or dentist to the extent that the personal injury protection benefits not held in reserve are insufficient to pay the claim. This paragraph does not require an insurer to establish a claim reserve for insurance accounting purposes.

(d) All overdue payments bear simple interest at the rate established under s. 55.03 or the rate established in the insurance contract, whichever is greater, for the quarter in which the payment became overdue, calculated from the date the insurer was furnished with written notice of the amount of covered loss. Interest is due at the time payment of the overdue claim is made.

(e) The insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle shall pay personal injury protection benefits for:

1. Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by the owner while occupying a motor vehicle, or while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle if the injury is caused by physical contact with a motor vehicle.

2. Accidental bodily injury sustained outside this state, but within the United States of America or its territories or possessions or Canada, by the owner while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle.

3. Accidental bodily injury sustained by a relative of the owner residing in the same household, under the circumstances described in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2., if the relative at the time of the accident is domiciled in the owner’s household and is not the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under ss. 627.730-627.7405.

4. Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by any other person while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle or, if a resident of this state, while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle if the injury is caused by physical contact with such motor vehicle, if the injured person is not:

a. The owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under ss. 627.730-627.7405; or

b. Entitled to personal injury benefits from the insurer of the owner of such a motor vehicle.

(f) If two or more insurers are liable for paying personal injury protection benefits for the same injury to any one person, the maximum payable is as specified in subsection (1), and the insurer paying the benefits is entitled to recover from each of the other insurers an equitable pro rata share of the benefits paid and expenses incurred in processing the claim.

(g) It is a violation of the insurance code for an insurer to fail to timely provide benefits as required by this section with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice.

(h) Benefits are not due or payable to or on the behalf of an insured person if that person has committed, by a material act or omission, insurance fraud relating to personal injury protection coverage under his or her policy, if the fraud is admitted to in a sworn statement by the insured or established in a court of competent jurisdiction. Any insurance fraud voids all coverage arising from the claim related to such fraud under the personal injury protection coverage of the insured person who committed the fraud, irrespective of whether a portion of the insured person’s claim may be legitimate, and any benefits paid before the discovery of the fraud is recoverable by the insurer in its entirety from the person who committed insurance fraud. The prevailing party is entitled to its costs and attorney fees in any action in which it prevails in an insurer’s action to enforce its right of recovery under this paragraph.

(i) If an insurer has a reasonable belief that a fraudulent insurance act, for the purposes of s. 626.989 or s. 817.234, has been committed, the insurer shall notify the claimant, in writing, within 30 days after submission of the claim that the claim is being investigated for suspected fraud. Beginning at the end of the initial 30-day period, the insurer has an additional 60 days to conduct its fraud investigation. Notwithstanding subsection (10), no later than 90 days after the submission of the claim, the insurer must deny the claim or pay the claim with simple interest as provided in paragraph (d). Interest shall be assessed from the day the claim was submitted until the day the claim is paid. All claims denied for suspected fraudulent insurance acts shall be reported to the Division of Criminal Investigations.

(j) An insurer shall create and maintain for each insured a log of personal injury protection benefits paid by the insurer on behalf of the insured. If litigation is commenced, the insurer shall provide to the insured a copy of the log within 30 days after receiving a request for the log from the insured.

(5) CHARGES FOR TREATMENT OF INJURED PERSONS.—

(a) A physician, hospital, clinic, or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person for a bodily injury covered by personal injury protection insurance may charge the insurer and injured party only a reasonable amount pursuant to this section for the services and supplies rendered, and the insurer providing such coverage may pay for such charges directly to such person or institution lawfully rendering such treatment if the insured receiving such treatment or his or her guardian has countersigned the properly completed invoice, bill, or claim form approved by the office upon which such charges are to be paid for as having actually been rendered, to the best knowledge of the insured or his or her guardian. However, such a charge may not exceed the amount the person or institution customarily charges for like services or supplies. In determining whether a charge for a particular service, treatment, or otherwise is reasonable, consideration may be given to evidence of usual and customary charges and payments accepted by the provider involved in the dispute, reimbursement levels in the community and various federal and state medical fee schedules applicable to motor vehicle and other insurance coverages, and other information relevant to the reasonableness of the reimbursement for the service, treatment, or supply.

1. The insurer may limit reimbursement to 80 percent of the following schedule of maximum charges:

a. For emergency transport and treatment by providers licensed under chapter 401, 200 percent of Medicare.

b. For emergency services and care provided by a hospital licensed under chapter 395, 75 percent of the hospital’s usual and customary charges.

c. For emergency services and care as defined by s. 395.002 provided in a facility licensed under chapter 395 rendered by a physician or dentist, and related hospital inpatient services rendered by a physician or dentist, the usual and customary charges in the community.

d. For hospital inpatient services, other than emergency services and care, 200 percent of the Medicare Part A prospective payment applicable to the specific hospital providing the inpatient services.

e. For hospital outpatient services, other than emergency services and care, 200 percent of the Medicare Part A Ambulatory Payment Classification for the specific hospital providing the outpatient services.

f. For all other medical services, supplies, and care, 200 percent of the allowable amount under:

(I) The participating physicians fee schedule of Medicare Part B, except as provided in sub-sub-subparagraphs (II) and (III).

(II) Medicare Part B, in the case of services, supplies, and care provided by ambulatory surgical centers and clinical laboratories.

(III) The Durable Medical Equipment Prosthetics/Orthotics and Supplies fee schedule of Medicare Part B, in the case of durable medical equipment.

However, if such services, supplies, or care is not reimbursable under Medicare Part B, as provided in this sub-subparagraph, the insurer may limit reimbursement to 80 percent of the maximum reimbursable allowance under workers’ compensation, as determined under s. 440.13 and rules adopted thereunder which are in effect at the time such services, supplies, or care is provided. Services, supplies, or care that is not reimbursable under Medicare or workers’ compensation is not required to be reimbursed by the insurer.

2. For purposes of subparagraph 1., the applicable fee schedule or payment limitation under Medicare is the fee schedule or payment limitation in effect on March 1 of the service year in which the services, supplies, or care is rendered and for the area in which such services, supplies, or care is rendered, and the applicable fee schedule or payment limitation applies to services, supplies, or care rendered during that service year, notwithstanding any subsequent change made to the fee schedule or payment limitation, except that it may not be less than the allowable amount under the applicable schedule of Medicare Part B for 2007 for medical services, supplies, and care subject to Medicare Part B. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “service year” means the period from March 1 through the end of February of the following year.

3. Subparagraph 1. does not allow the insurer to apply any limitation on the number of treatments or other utilization limits that apply under Medicare or workers’ compensation. An insurer that applies the allowable payment limitations of subparagraph 1. must reimburse a provider who lawfully provided care or treatment under the scope of his or her license, regardless of whether such provider is entitled to reimbursement under Medicare due to restrictions or limitations on the types or discipline of health care providers who may be reimbursed for particular procedures or procedure codes. However, subparagraph 1. does not prohibit an insurer from using the Medicare coding policies and payment methodologies of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, including applicable modifiers, to determine the appropriate amount of reimbursement for medical services, supplies, or care if the coding policy or payment methodology does not constitute a utilization limit.

4. If an insurer limits payment as authorized by subparagraph 1., the person providing such services, supplies, or care may not bill or attempt to collect from the insured any amount in excess of such limits, except for amounts that are not covered by the insured’s personal injury protection coverage due to the coinsurance amount or maximum policy limits.

5. An insurer may limit payment as authorized by this paragraph only if the insurance policy includes a notice at the time of issuance or renewal that the insurer may limit payment pursuant to the schedule of charges specified in this paragraph. A policy form approved by the office satisfies this requirement. If a provider submits a charge for an amount less than the amount allowed under subparagraph 1., the insurer may pay the amount of the charge submitted.

(b)1. An insurer or insured is not required to pay a claim or charges:

a. Made by a broker or by a person making a claim on behalf of a broker;

b. For any service or treatment that was not lawful at the time rendered;

c. To any person who knowingly submits a false or misleading statement relating to the claim or charges;

d. With respect to a bill or statement that does not substantially meet the applicable requirements of paragraph (d);

e. For any treatment or service that is upcoded, or that is unbundled when such treatment or services should be bundled, in accordance with paragraph (d). To facilitate prompt payment of lawful services, an insurer may change codes that it determines have been improperly or incorrectly upcoded or unbundled and may make payment based on the changed codes, without affecting the right of the provider to dispute the change by the insurer, if, before doing so, the insurer contacts the health care provider and discusses the reasons for the insurer’s change and the health care provider’s reason for the coding, or makes a reasonable good faith effort to do so, as documented in the insurer’s file; and

f. For medical services or treatment billed by a physician and not provided in a hospital unless such services are rendered by the physician or are incident to his or her professional services and are included on the physician’s bill, including documentation verifying that the physician is responsible for the medical services that were rendered and billed.

2. The Department of Health, in consultation with the appropriate professional licensing boards, shall adopt, by rule, a list of diagnostic tests deemed not to be medically necessary for use in the treatment of persons sustaining bodily injury covered by personal injury protection benefits under this section. The list shall be revised from time to time as determined by the Department of Health, in consultation with the respective professional licensing boards. Inclusion of a test on the list shall be based on lack of demonstrated medical value and a level of general acceptance by the relevant provider community and may not be dependent for results entirely upon subjective patient response. Notwithstanding its inclusion on a fee schedule in this subsection, an insurer or insured is not required to pay any charges or reimburse claims for an invalid diagnostic test as determined by the Department of Health.

(c) With respect to any treatment or service, other than medical services billed by a hospital or other provider for emergency services and care as defined in s. 395.002 or inpatient services rendered at a hospital-owned facility, the statement of charges must be furnished to the insurer by the provider and may not include, and the insurer is not required to pay, charges for treatment or services rendered more than 35 days before the postmark date or electronic transmission date of the statement, except for past due amounts previously billed on a timely basis under this paragraph, and except that, if the provider submits to the insurer a notice of initiation of treatment within 21 days after its first examination or treatment of the claimant, the statement may include charges for treatment or services rendered up to, but not more than, 75 days before the postmark date of the statement. The injured party is not liable for, and the provider may not bill the injured party for, charges that are unpaid because of the provider’s failure to comply with this paragraph. Any agreement requiring the injured person or insured to pay for such charges is unenforceable.

1. If the insured fails to furnish the provider with the correct name and address of the insured’s personal injury protection insurer, the provider has 35 days from the date the provider obtains the correct information to furnish the insurer with a statement of the charges. The insurer is not required to pay for such charges unless the provider includes with the statement documentary evidence that was provided by the insured during the 35-day period demonstrating that the provider reasonably relied on erroneous information from the insured and either:

a. A denial letter from the incorrect insurer; or

b. Proof of mailing, which may include an affidavit under penalty of perjury, reflecting timely mailing to the incorrect address or insurer.

2. For emergency services and care rendered in a hospital emergency department or for transport and treatment rendered by an ambulance provider licensed pursuant to part III of chapter 401, the provider is not required to furnish the statement of charges within the time periods established by this paragraph, and the insurer is not considered to have been furnished with notice of the amount of covered loss for purposes of paragraph (4)(b) until it receives a statement complying with paragraph (d), or copy thereof, which specifically identifies the place of service to be a hospital emergency department or an ambulance in accordance with billing standards recognized by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

3. Each notice of the insured’s rights under s. 627.7401 must include the following statement in at least 12-point type:

BILLING REQUIREMENTS.—Florida law provides that with respect to any treatment or services, other than certain hospital and emergency services, the statement of charges furnished to the insurer by the provider may not include, and the insurer and the injured party are not required to pay, charges for treatment or services rendered more than 35 days before the postmark date of the statement, except for past due amounts previously billed on a timely basis, and except that, if the provider submits to the insurer a notice of initiation of treatment within 21 days after its first examination or treatment of the claimant, the statement may include charges for treatment or services rendered up to, but not more than, 75 days before the postmark date of the statement.

(d) All statements and bills for medical services rendered by a physician, hospital, clinic, or other person or institution shall be submitted to the insurer on a properly completed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 1500 form, UB 92 forms, or any other standard form approved by the office and adopted by the commission for purposes of this paragraph. All billings for such services rendered by providers must, to the extent applicable, comply with the CMS 1500 form instructions, the American Medical Association CPT Editorial Panel, and the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS); and must follow the Physicians’ Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), the HCPCS in effect for the year in which services are rendered, and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services in effect for the year in which services are rendered. All providers, other than hospitals, must include on the applicable claim form the professional license number of the provider in the line or space provided for “Signature of Physician or Supplier, Including Degrees or Credentials.” In determining compliance with applicable CPT and HCPCS coding, guidance shall be provided by the CPT or the HCPCS in effect for the year in which services were rendered, the Office of the Inspector General, Physicians Compliance Guidelines, and other authoritative treatises designated by rule by the Agency for Health Care Administration. A statement of medical services may not include charges for medical services of a person or entity that performed such services without possessing the valid licenses required to perform such services. For purposes of paragraph (4)(b), an insurer is not considered to have been furnished with notice of the amount of covered loss or medical bills due unless the statements or bills comply with this paragraph and are properly completed in their entirety as to all material provisions, with all relevant information being provided therein.

(e)1. At the initial treatment or service provided, each physician, other licensed professional, clinic, or other medical institution providing medical services upon which a claim for personal injury protection benefits is based shall require an insured person, or his or her guardian, to execute a disclosure and acknowledgment form, which reflects at a minimum that:

a. The insured, or his or her guardian, must countersign the form attesting to the fact that the services set forth therein were actually rendered;

b. The insured, or his or her guardian, has both the right and affirmative duty to confirm that the services were actually rendered;

c. The insured, or his or her guardian, was not solicited by any person to seek any services from the medical provider;

d. The physician, other licensed professional, clinic, or other medical institution rendering services for which payment is being claimed explained the services to the insured or his or her guardian; and

e. If the insured notifies the insurer in writing of a billing error, the insured may be entitled to a certain percentage of a reduction in the amounts paid by the insured’s motor vehicle insurer.

2. The physician, other licensed professional, clinic, or other medical institution rendering services for which payment is being claimed has the affirmative duty to explain the services rendered to the insured, or his or her guardian, so that the insured, or his or her guardian, countersigns the form with informed consent.

3. Countersignature by the insured, or his or her guardian, is not required for the reading of diagnostic tests or other services that are of such a nature that they are not required to be performed in the presence of the insured.

4. The licensed medical professional rendering treatment for which payment is being claimed must sign, by his or her own hand, the form complying with this paragraph.

5. The original completed disclosure and acknowledgment form shall be furnished to the insurer pursuant to paragraph (4)(b) and may not be electronically furnished.

6. The disclosure and acknowledgment form is not required for services billed by a provider for emergency services and care as defined in s. 395.002 rendered in a hospital emergency department, or for transport and treatment rendered by an ambulance provider licensed pursuant to part III of chapter 401.

7. The Financial Services Commission shall adopt, by rule, a standard disclosure and acknowledgment form to be used to fulfill the requirements of this paragraph.

8. As used in this paragraph, the term “countersign” or “countersignature” means a second or verifying signature, as on a previously signed document, and is not satisfied by the statement “signature on file” or any similar statement.

9. The requirements of this paragraph apply only with respect to the initial treatment or service of the insured by a provider. For subsequent treatments or service, the provider must maintain a patient log signed by the patient, in chronological order by date of service, which is consistent with the services being rendered to the patient as claimed. The requirement to maintain a patient log signed by the patient may be met by a hospital that maintains medical records as required by s. 395.3025 and applicable rules and makes such records available to the insurer upon request.

(f) Upon written notification by any person, an insurer shall investigate any claim of improper billing by a physician or other medical provider. The insurer shall determine if the insured was properly billed for only those services and treatments that the insured actually received. If the insurer determines that the insured has been improperly billed, the insurer shall notify the insured, the person making the written notification, and the provider of its findings and reduce the amount of payment to the provider by the amount determined to be improperly billed. If a reduction is made due to a written notification by any person, the insurer shall pay to the person 20 percent of the amount of the reduction, up to $500. If the provider is arrested due to the improper billing, the insurer shall pay to the person 40 percent of the amount of the reduction, up to $500.

(g) An insurer may not systematically downcode with the intent to deny reimbursement otherwise due. Such action constitutes a material misrepresentation under s. 626.9541(1)(i)2.

(h) As provided in s. 400.9905, an entity excluded from the definition of a clinic shall be deemed a clinic and must be licensed under part X of chapter 400 in order to receive reimbursement under ss. 627.730-627.7405. However, this licensing requirement does not apply to:

1. An entity wholly owned by a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, or by the physician and the spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the physician;

2. An entity wholly owned by a dentist licensed under chapter 466, or by the dentist and the spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the dentist;

3. An entity wholly owned by a chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, or by the chiropractic physician and the spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the chiropractic physician;

4. A hospital or ambulatory surgical center licensed under chapter 395;

5. An entity that wholly owns or is wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by a hospital or hospitals licensed under chapter 395;

6. An entity that is a clinical facility affiliated with an accredited medical school at which training is provided for medical students, residents, or fellows;

7. An entity that is certified under 42 C.F.R. part 485, subpart H; or

8. An entity that is owned by a publicly traded corporation, either directly or indirectly through its subsidiaries, that has $250 million or more in total annual sales of health care services provided by licensed health care practitioners if one or more of the persons responsible for the operations of the entity are health care practitioners who are licensed in this state and who are responsible for supervising the business activities of the entity and the entity’s compliance with state law for purposes of this section.

(6) DISCOVERY OF FACTS ABOUT AN INJURED PERSON; DISPUTES.—

(a) If a request is made by an insurer providing personal injury protection benefits under ss. 627.730-627.7405 against whom a claim has been made, an employer must furnish, in a form approved by the office, a sworn statement of the earnings, since the time of the bodily injury and for a reasonable period before the injury, of the person upon whose injury the claim is based.

(b) Every physician, hospital, clinic, or other medical institution providing, before or after bodily injury upon which a claim for personal injury protection insurance benefits is based, any products, services, or accommodations in relation to that or any other injury, or in relation to a condition claimed to be connected with that or any other injury, shall, if requested by the insurer against whom the claim has been made, furnish a written report of the history, condition, treatment, dates, and costs of such treatment of the injured person and why the items identified by the insurer were reasonable in amount and medically necessary, together with a sworn statement that the treatment or services rendered were reasonable and necessary with respect to the bodily injury sustained and identifying which portion of the expenses for such treatment or services was incurred as a result of such bodily injury, and produce, and allow the inspection and copying of, his or her or its records regarding such history, condition, treatment, dates, and costs of treatment if this does not limit the introduction of evidence at trial. Such sworn statement must read as follows: “Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.” A cause of action for violation of the physician-patient privilege or invasion of the right of privacy may not be brought against any physician, hospital, clinic, or other medical institution complying with this section. The person requesting such records and such sworn statement shall pay all reasonable costs connected therewith. If an insurer makes a written request for documentation or information under this paragraph within 30 days after having received notice of the amount of a covered loss under paragraph (4)(a), the amount or the partial amount that is the subject of the insurer’s inquiry is overdue if the insurer does not pay in accordance with paragraph (4)(b) or within 10 days after the insurer’s receipt of the requested documentation or information, whichever occurs later. As used in this paragraph, the term “receipt” includes, but is not limited to, inspection and copying pursuant to this paragraph. An insurer that requests documentation or information pertaining to reasonableness of charges or medical necessity under this paragraph without a reasonable basis for such requests as a general business practice is engaging in an unfair trade practice under the insurance code.

(c) In the event of a dispute regarding an insurer’s right to discovery of facts under this section, the insurer may petition a court of competent jurisdiction to enter an order permitting such discovery. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to all persons having an interest, and must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the discovery. In order to protect against annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, as justice requires, the court may enter an order refusing discovery or specifying conditions of discovery and may order payments of costs and expenses of the proceeding, including reasonable fees for the appearance of attorneys at the proceedings, as justice requires.

(d) The injured person shall be furnished, upon request, a copy of all information obtained by the insurer under this section, and pay a reasonable charge, if required by the insurer.

(e) Notice to an insurer of the existence of a claim may not be unreasonably withheld by an insured.

(f) In a dispute between the insured and the insurer, or between an assignee of the insured’s rights and the insurer, upon request, the insurer must notify the insured or the assignee that the policy limits under this section have been reached within 15 days after the limits have been reached.

(g) An insured seeking benefits under ss. 627.730–627.7405, including an omnibus insured, must comply with the terms of the policy, which include, but are not limited to, submitting to an examination under oath. The scope of questioning during the examination under oath is limited to relevant information or information that could reasonably be expected to lead to relevant information. Compliance with this paragraph is a condition precedent to receiving benefits. An insurer that, as a general business practice as determined by the office, requests an examination under oath of an insured or an omnibus insured without a reasonable basis is subject to s. 626.9541.

(7) MENTAL AND PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF INJURED PERSON; REPORTS.—

(a) Whenever the mental or physical condition of an injured person covered by personal injury protection is material to any claim that has been or may be made for past or future personal injury protection insurance benefits, such person shall, upon the request of an insurer, submit to mental or physical examination by a physician or physicians. The costs of any examinations requested by an insurer shall be borne entirely by the insurer. Such examination shall be conducted within the municipality where the insured is receiving treatment, or in a location reasonably accessible to the insured, which, for purposes of this paragraph, means any location within the municipality in which the insured resides, or any location within 10 miles by road of the insured’s residence, provided such location is within the county in which the insured resides. If the examination is to be conducted in a location reasonably accessible to the insured, and if there is no qualified physician to conduct the examination in a location reasonably accessible to the insured, such examination shall be conducted in an area of the closest proximity to the insured’s residence. Personal protection insurers are authorized to include reasonable provisions in personal injury protection insurance policies for mental and physical examination of those claiming personal injury protection insurance benefits. An insurer may not withdraw payment of a treating physician without the consent of the injured person covered by the personal injury protection, unless the insurer first obtains a valid report by a Florida physician licensed under the same chapter as the treating physician whose treatment authorization is sought to be withdrawn, stating that treatment was not reasonable, related, or necessary. A valid report is one that is prepared and signed by the physician examining the injured person or reviewing the treatment records of the injured person and is factually supported by the examination and treatment records if reviewed and that has not been modified by anyone other than the physician. The physician preparing the report must be in active practice, unless the physician is physically disabled. Active practice means that during the 3 years immediately preceding the date of the physical examination or review of the treatment records the physician must have devoted professional time to the active clinical practice of evaluation, diagnosis, or treatment of medical conditions or to the instruction of students in an accredited health professional school or accredited residency program or a clinical research program that is affiliated with an accredited health professional school or teaching hospital or accredited residency program. The physician preparing a report at the request of an insurer and physicians rendering expert opinions on behalf of persons claiming medical benefits for personal injury protection, or on behalf of an insured through an attorney or another entity, shall maintain, for at least 3 years, copies of all examination reports as medical records and shall maintain, for at least 3 years, records of all payments for the examinations and reports. Neither an insurer nor any person acting at the direction of or on behalf of an insurer may materially change an opinion in a report prepared under this paragraph or direct the physician preparing the report to change such opinion. The denial of a payment as the result of such a changed opinion constitutes a material misrepresentation under s. 626.9541(1)(i)2.; however, this provision does not preclude the insurer from calling to the attention of the physician errors of fact in the report based upon information in the claim file.

(b) If requested by the person examined, a party causing an examination to be made shall deliver to him or her a copy of every written report concerning the examination rendered by an examining physician, at least one of which reports must set out the examining physician’s findings and conclusions in detail. After such request and delivery, the party causing the examination to be made is entitled, upon request, to receive from the person examined every written report available to him or her or his or her representative concerning any examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same mental or physical condition. By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered, or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the person examined waives any privilege he or she may have, in relation to the claim for benefits, regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined, or may thereafter examine, him or her in respect to the same mental or physical condition. If a person unreasonably refuses to submit to or fails to appear at an examination, the personal injury protection carrier is no longer liable for subsequent personal injury protection benefits. An insured’s refusal to submit to or failure to appear at two examinations raises a rebuttable presumption that the insured’s refusal or failure was unreasonable.

(8) APPLICABILITY OF PROVISION REGULATING ATTORNEY FEES.—With respect to any dispute under the provisions of ss. 627.730-627.7405 between the insured and the insurer, or between an assignee of an insured’s rights and the insurer, the provisions of s. 768.79 apply, except as provided in subsections (10) and (15), and except that any attorney fees recovered must:

(a) Comply with prevailing professional standards;

(b) Not overstate or inflate the number of hours reasonably necessary for a case of comparable skill or complexity; and

Upon request by either party, a judge must make written findings, substantiated by evidence presented at trial or any hearings associated therewith, that any award of attorney fees complies with this subsection. Attorney fees recovered under ss. 627.730-627.7405 must be calculated without regard to a contingency risk multiplier.

(9) PREFERRED PROVIDERS.—An insurer may negotiate and contract with preferred providers for the benefits described in this section, which include health care providers licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 460, chapter 461, or chapter 463. The insurer may provide an option to an insured to use a preferred provider at the time of purchasing the policy for personal injury protection benefits, if the requirements of this subsection are met. If the insured elects to use a provider who is not a preferred provider, whether the insured purchased a preferred provider policy or a nonpreferred provider policy, the medical benefits provided by the insurer shall be as required by this section. If the insured elects to use a provider who is a preferred provider, the insurer may pay medical benefits in excess of the benefits required by this section and may waive or lower the amount of any deductible that applies to such medical benefits. If the insurer offers a preferred provider policy to a policyholder or applicant, it must also offer a nonpreferred provider policy. The insurer shall provide each insured with a current roster of preferred providers in the county in which the insured resides at the time of purchase of such policy, and shall make such list available for public inspection during regular business hours at the insurer’s principal office within the state.

(10) DEMAND LETTER.—

(a) As a condition precedent to filing any action for benefits under this section, written notice of an intent to initiate litigation must be provided to the insurer. Such notice may not be sent until the claim is overdue, including any additional time the insurer has to pay the claim pursuant to paragraph (4)(b).

(b) The notice must state that it is a “demand letter under s. 627.736” and state with specificity:

1. The name of the insured upon which such benefits are being sought, including a copy of the assignment giving rights to the claimant if the claimant is not the insured.

2. The claim number or policy number upon which such claim was originally submitted to the insurer.

3. To the extent applicable, the name of any medical provider who rendered to an insured the treatment, services, accommodations, or supplies that form the basis of such claim; and an itemized statement specifying each exact amount, the date of treatment, service, or accommodation, and the type of benefit claimed to be due. A completed form satisfying the requirements of paragraph (5)(d) or the lost-wage statement previously submitted may be used as the itemized statement. To the extent that the demand involves an insurer’s withdrawal of payment under paragraph (7)(a) for future treatment not yet rendered, the claimant shall attach a copy of the insurer’s notice withdrawing such payment and an itemized statement of the type, frequency, and duration of future treatment claimed to be reasonable and medically necessary.

(c) Each notice required by this subsection must be delivered to the insurer by United States certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Such postal costs shall be reimbursed by the insurer if requested by the claimant in the notice, when the insurer pays the claim. Such notice must be sent to the person and address specified by the insurer for the purposes of receiving notices under this subsection. Each licensed insurer, whether domestic, foreign, or alien, shall file with the office the name and address of the designated person to whom notices must be sent which the office shall make available on its Internet website. The name and address on file with the office pursuant to s. 624.422 is deemed the authorized representative to accept notice pursuant to this subsection if no other designation has been made.

(d) If, within 30 days after receipt of notice by the insurer, the overdue claim specified in the notice is paid by the insurer together with applicable interest and a penalty of 10 percent of the overdue amount paid by the insurer, subject to a maximum penalty of $250, no action may be brought against the insurer. If the demand involves an insurer’s withdrawal of payment under paragraph (7)(a) for future treatment not yet rendered, no action may be brought against the insurer if, within 30 days after its receipt of the notice, the insurer mails to the person filing the notice a written statement of the insurer’s agreement to pay for such treatment in accordance with the notice and to pay a penalty of 10 percent, subject to a maximum penalty of $250, when it pays for such future treatment in accordance with the requirements of this section. To the extent the insurer determines not to pay any amount demanded, the penalty is not payable in any subsequent action. For purposes of this subsection, payment or the insurer’s agreement shall be treated as being made on the date a draft or other valid instrument that is equivalent to payment, or the insurer’s written statement of agreement, is placed in the United States mail in a properly addressed, postpaid envelope, or if not so posted, on the date of delivery. The insurer is not obligated to pay any attorney fees if the insurer pays the claim or mails its agreement to pay for future treatment within the time prescribed by this subsection.

(e) The applicable statute of limitation for an action under this section shall be tolled for 30 business days by the mailing of the notice required by this subsection.

(11) FAILURE TO PAY VALID CLAIMS; UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE PRACTICE.—

(a) An insurer is engaging in a prohibited unfair or deceptive practice that is subject to the penalties provided in s. 626.9521 and the office has the powers and duties specified in ss. 626.9561-626.9601 if the insurer, with such frequency so as to indicate a general business practice:

1. Fails to pay valid claims for personal injury protection; or

2. Fails to pay valid claims until receipt of the notice required by subsection (10).

(b) Notwithstanding s. 501.212, the Department of Legal Affairs may investigate and initiate actions for a violation of this subsection, including, but not limited to, the powers and duties specified in part II of chapter 501.

(12) CIVIL ACTION FOR INSURANCE FRAUD.—An insurer shall have a cause of action against any person convicted of, or who, regardless of adjudication of guilt, pleads guilty or nolo contendere to insurance fraud under s. 817.234, patient brokering under s. 817.505, or kickbacks under s. 456.054, associated with a claim for personal injury protection benefits in accordance with this section. An insurer prevailing in an action brought under this subsection may recover compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages subject to the requirements and limitations of part II of chapter 768, and attorney’s fees and costs incurred in litigating a cause of action against any person convicted of, or who, regardless of adjudication of guilt, pleads guilty or nolo contendere to insurance fraud under s. 817.234, patient brokering under s. 817.505, or kickbacks under s. 456.054, associated with a claim for personal injury protection benefits in accordance with this section.

(13) MINIMUM BENEFIT COVERAGE.—If the Financial Services Commission determines that the cost savings under personal injury protection insurance benefits paid by insurers have been realized due to the provisions of this act, prior legislative reforms, or other factors, the commission may increase the minimum $10,000 benefit coverage requirement. In establishing the amount of such increase, the commission must determine that the additional premium for such coverage is approximately equal to the premium cost savings that have been realized for the personal injury protection coverage with limits of $10,000.

(14) FRAUD ADVISORY NOTICE.—Upon receiving notice of a claim under this section, an insurer shall provide a notice to the insured or to a person for whom a claim for reimbursement for diagnosis or treatment of injuries has been filed, advising that:

(a) Pursuant to s. 626.9892, the Department of Financial Services may pay rewards of up to $25,000 to persons providing information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons committing crimes investigated by the Division of Criminal Investigations arising from violations of s. 440.105, s. 624.15, s. 626.9541, s. 626.989, or s. 817.234.

(b) Solicitation of a person injured in a motor vehicle crash for purposes of filing personal injury protection or tort claims could be a violation of s. 817.234, s. 817.505, or the rules regulating The Florida Bar and should be immediately reported to the Division of Criminal Investigations if such conduct has taken place.

(15) ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT IN A SINGLE ACTION.—In any civil action to recover personal injury protection benefits brought by a claimant pursuant to this section against an insurer, all claims related to the same health care provider for the same injured person shall be brought in one action, unless good cause is shown why such claims should be brought separately. If the court determines that a civil action is filed for a claim that should have been brought in a prior civil action, the court may not award attorney’s fees to the claimant.

(16) SECURE ELECTRONIC DATA TRANSFER.—A notice, documentation, transmission, or communication of any kind required or authorized under ss. 627.730-627.7405 may be transmitted electronically if it is transmitted by secure electronic data transfer that is consistent with state and federal privacy and security laws.

(17) NONREIMBURSABLE CLAIMS.—Claims generated as a result of activities that are unlawful pursuant to s. 817.505 are not reimbursable under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.

History.—s. 7, ch. 71-252; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 4, ch. 76-266; s. 1, ch. 77-457; s. 33, ch. 77-468; s. 3, ch. 78-374; s. 114, ch. 79-40; s. 165, ch. 79-164; s. 239, ch. 79-400; s. 3, ch. 80-206; s. 430, ch. 81-259; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 554, 563, ch. 82-243; s. 31, ch. 87-226; s. 1, ch. 87-282; ss. 19, 20, 21, 22, ch. 88-370; s. 2, ch. 89-243; s. 1, ch. 89-313; s. 40, ch. 90-119; s. 7, ch. 90-232; s. 11, ch. 90-248; s. 36, ch. 90-295; s. 7, ch. 91-106; s. 66, ch. 91-282; s. 84, ch. 92-318; s. 7, ch. 93-289; s. 1, ch. 94-123; s. 8, ch. 95-202; s. 83, ch. 95-211; s. 381, ch. 96-406; s. 1738, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 98-270; s. 262, ch. 99-8; s. 62, ch. 2001-63; s. 6, ch. 2001-271; s. 1195, ch. 2003-261; ss. 8, 19, ch. 2003-411; s. 124, ch. 2004-5; s. 121, ch. 2005-2; s. 13, ch. 2006-305; ss. 13, 20, ch. 2007-324; s. 153, ch. 2008-4; s. 22, ch. 2008-220; s. 86, ch. 2009-21; s. 17, ch. 2012-151; ss. 10, 11, ch. 2012-197; s. 14, ch. 2013-93; s. 7, ch. 2015-135; s. 6, ch. 2016-133; s. 23, ch. 2016-165; s. 75, ch. 2018-106; s. 31, ch. 2020-9; s. 3, ch. 2021-96; s. 19, ch. 2021-143; s. 22, ch. 2023-15; s. 19, ch. 2025-4.

F.S. 627.736 on Google Scholar

F.S. 627.736 on CourtListener

Amendments to 627.736

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 627.736

Total Results: 694

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos

843 So. 2d 885, 2003 WL 1740882

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 2003 | Docket: 271161

Cited 254 times | Published

provision at issue in the instant case is section 627.736(4), which describes when personal injury protection

Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom

555 So. 2d 828, 1990 WL 3840

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 1990 | Docket: 1246425

Cited 192 times | Published

personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under section 627.736(4)(d)4., Florida Statutes. Id. at 1296. Quanstrom

Custer Medical Center v. United Automobile Insurance Co.

62 So. 3d 1086, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 640, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1860, 2010 WL 4340809

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 2010 | Docket: 751648

Cited 178 times | Published

was "unreasonable" as a matter of law under section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (2001). The relevant portion

Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co.

774 So. 2d 679, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1103, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2367, 2000 WL 1785994

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 2000 | Docket: 1330687

Cited 173 times | Published

notice of the covered loss, as required by section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). Ivey sought

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols

932 So. 2d 1067, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 358, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 982, 2006 WL 1491542

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2006 | Docket: 1072860

Cited 117 times | Published

subsequent personal injury protection benefits." § 627.736(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). Relying on the statute

Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company

296 So. 2d 9

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1974 | Docket: 2556516

Cited 113 times | Published

liable for payment of the benefits under F.S. § 627.736, F.S.A., for personal injury and has all the obligations

South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. AllState Insurance Company

745 F.3d 1312, 2014 WL 576111, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2787

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 14, 2014 | Docket: 89746

Cited 97 times | Published

statutory fee schedule contained in Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(a). The general rule for PIP coverage

Rollins v. Pizzarelli

761 So. 2d 294, 2000 WL 551032

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 4, 2000 | Docket: 1299957

Cited 90 times | Published

Court: WHETHER THE TERM "PAID OR PAYABLE" IN SECTION 627.736(3), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1996), *296 SHOULD

Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co.

35 So. 3d 873, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 222, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 581, 2010 WL 1609785

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 2010 | Docket: 2515595

Cited 79 times | Published

comply with the presuit notice provisions. See § 627.736(11)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). ANALYSIS The dispositive

GOV. EMPLOYEES INS. CO. v. Novak

453 So. 2d 1116

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 1984 | Docket: 1651288

Cited 75 times | Published

and the statute regulating such policies. Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), requires that

Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

352 So. 2d 1172

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 1977 | Docket: 1694081

Cited 50 times | Published

personal injury protection benefits due under Section 627.736. Except for providing security for this "no

Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co.

800 So. 2d 197, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 706, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 2138, 2001 WL 1284660

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 2001 | Docket: 1683663

Cited 40 times | Published

("PIP") benefits that were paid or payable. See § 627.736(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); see generally Rollins,

Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co.

819 So. 2d 740, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1093, 2002 WL 1028332

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 23, 2002 | Docket: 2527551

Cited 37 times | Published

of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault law. See § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also Allstate Ins.

Nat. Merchandise Co., Inc. v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n

400 So. 2d 526

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 1981 | Docket: 2034683

Cited 36 times | Published

motor vehicle" is required in auto policies. Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1979). See also Sections

Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co.

692 So. 2d 979, 1997 WL 208049

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1997 | Docket: 1524655

Cited 34 times | Published

ownership, maintenance or use" of a motor vehicle. § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). "Arising out of the ownership

State v. Mark Marks, PA

698 So. 2d 533, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 439, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 1056, 1997 WL 417282

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 1997 | Docket: 288055

Cited 33 times | Published

unconstitutionally vague because it conflicted with section 627.736(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), the personal

Progressive Exp. v. McGRATH CHIROPRACTIC

913 So. 2d 1281, 2005 WL 3077230

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 2005 | Docket: 1698324

Cited 32 times | Published

payment directly from the insurer derives from section 627.736(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), which provides

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lee

678 So. 2d 818, 1996 WL 473318

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 22, 1996 | Docket: 2517431

Cited 32 times | Published

apply to a cause of action for a PIP claim: Section 627.736(4)(d)4, Florida Statutes (1981), specifically

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Performance Orthopaedics & Neurosurgery, LLC

278 F. Supp. 3d 1307

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 2017 | Docket: 64316086

Cited 30 times | Published

(M.D. Fla. 2009) (discussing Fla. Stat. Ann. § 627.736(12), which similarly provides an insurer a “cause

DiStefano Const., Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.

597 So. 2d 248, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 83, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 187, 1992 WL 18562

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1992 | Docket: 1704824

Cited 28 times | Published

[4] See § 627.756, Fla. Stat. (1987). [5] See § 627.736(8), Fla. Stat. (1987).

A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO General Insurance Company

925 F.3d 1205

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 30, 2019 | Docket: 15696086

Cited 27 times | Published

protection (PIP) benefits. See Fla. Stat. § 627.736 (1) (mandating that automobile insurers provide

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez

808 So. 2d 82, 2001 WL 1380001

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 2001 | Docket: 1474311

Cited 26 times | Published

amount of the unpaid medical bills plus interest. § 627.736(4)(b), (c), Fla. Stat. (1997). She moved for summary

Heredia v. Allstate Ins. Co.

358 So. 2d 1353, 1978 Fla. LEXIS 4726

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 1978 | Docket: 1311291

Cited 25 times | Published

ADKINS and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent. NOTES [1] § 627.736(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1975). [2] § 627.732(1), Fla

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinnacle Med., Inc.

753 So. 2d 55, 2000 WL 123791

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 3, 2000 | Docket: 1729070

Cited 24 times | Published

District Court of Appeal declared a portion of section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1995), unconstitutional

Rittman v. Allstate Ins. Co.

727 So. 2d 391, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2508, 1999 WL 122904

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 1999 | Docket: 1730154

Cited 24 times | Published

filed a demand for arbitration, pursuant to section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes. In the order ruling on

Reynolds v. Allstate Ins. Co.

400 So. 2d 496, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19942

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 27, 1981 | Docket: 1676915

Cited 23 times | Published

of his motor vehicle within the meaning of section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1979), relating to the

Lenworth Bailey v. Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC

889 F.3d 1259

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 8, 2018 | Docket: 6470332

Cited 22 times | Published

Fla. Stat. § 627.736 (1)(a). The PIP statute, Florida Statutes § 627.736, permits an insured

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Santa Fe Medical Center

21 So. 3d 60, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14915, 2009 WL 3188957

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 2009 | Docket: 271163

Cited 22 times | Published

involves the application of two subsections of section 627.736subsections (4)(b) and (7)(a). Subsection (4)(b)

Hernandez v. Protective Cas. Ins. Co.

473 So. 2d 1241, 53 U.S.L.W. 2629, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 297, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3247

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 30, 1985 | Docket: 451405

Cited 22 times | Published

operation or maintenance of a motor vehicle. See § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. (1983). Cross motions for judgment

Nichols v. State Farm Mut.

851 So. 2d 742, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8794, 2003 WL 21359343

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2003 | Docket: 1691422

Cited 21 times | Published

provisions relating to PIP benefits found in section 627.736. Therefore, it is clear to me that the Legislature

Chapman v. Dillon

415 So. 2d 12

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 1982 | Docket: 1512942

Cited 21 times | Published

permissible PIP "deductible." When we decided Lasky, section 627.736(1) provided for recovery of 100% of medical

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. v. Gonzalez

512 So. 2d 269, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2111, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10086

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 1, 1987 | Docket: 1517335

Cited 20 times | Published

certainly within the 30 day period provided by section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1983).[4] See Great

Purdy v. Gulf Breeze Enterprises, Inc.

403 So. 2d 1325, 1981 Fla. LEXIS 2807

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 1981 | Docket: 1250542

Cited 20 times | Published

Statutes (1971), when it was first enacted. Section 627.736(3) was previously a provision concerning an

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma

555 So. 2d 836, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 29, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 153, 1990 WL 3849

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 1990 | Docket: 1396170

Cited 19 times | Published

necessary medical service consistent with section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1983).[1] State *837 Farm

Warren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

899 So. 2d 1090, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 197, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 593, 2005 WL 729173

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2005 | Docket: 306738

Cited 18 times | Published

review a challenge to the constitutionality of section 627.736(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), contained in

Blish v. Atlanta Cas. Co.

736 So. 2d 1151, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 204, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 765, 1999 WL 284875

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 6, 1999 | Docket: 1736521

Cited 18 times | Published

coverage. We agree. The controlling statute, section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1995), requires that motor

Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Graff

327 So. 2d 88

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 1976 | Docket: 237358

Cited 18 times | Published

Reparations Reform Act are reimbursable under § 627.736, F.S. 1973, only "to the extent that the injured

Dunmore v. Interstate Fire Ins. Co.

301 So. 2d 502

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 1974 | Docket: 1700813

Cited 18 times | Published

not made within thirty days as required by Section 627.736(4)(d) and appellant filed suit. A default judgment

Nationwide Mutual Co. v. Ft. Myers Total Rehab Center, Inc.

657 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71308

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2009 | Docket: 2177516

Cited 17 times | Published

*1286 Defendants next argue that FLA. STAT. § 627.736 gives Nationwide a right to individually challenge

Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Wolfe

372 So. 2d 1147

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 29, 1979 | Docket: 1325577

Cited 17 times | Published

ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1977). Appellees attempt

Reyes v. Banks

292 So. 2d 39

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 1974 | Docket: 1511687

Cited 17 times | Published

Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, Section 627.736, Florida Statutes 1971, F.S.A. We reverse.

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Law Offices of Libman

46 So. 3d 1101, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16298, 2010 WL 4226260

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 2010 | Docket: 2398852

Cited 16 times | Published

The PIP lawsuits were brought pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes, which provides personal

COLONIAL PENN v. Magnetic Imaging Systems

694 So. 2d 852, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6173, 1997 WL 294656

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 1997 | Docket: 1450644

Cited 16 times | Published

this action seeking statutory interest under section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1995),[1] on behalf

Tindall v. Allstate Ins. Co.

472 So. 2d 1291, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1708, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15103

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 1985 | Docket: 1793738

Cited 16 times | Published

independent medical examinations was unreasonable." Section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes, expressly requires

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Silver Star Health and Rehab

739 F.3d 579, 2013 WL 3989107, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16255

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 6, 2013 | Docket: 2902852

Cited 15 times | Published

lawful at the time rendered ...,” id. § 627.736(5)(b)l.b., and it defines “lawful” as “in substantial

Farrer v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co.

809 So. 2d 85

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 2002 | Docket: 1385380

Cited 15 times | Published

vehicle," as required both by the policy and section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1995). See Blish, 736 So

US SEC. Ins. Co. v. Cimino

754 So. 2d 697, 2000 WL 263418

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2000 | Docket: 431254

Cited 15 times | Published

medical examination for Cimino. Pursuant to section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and as provided

Faulkner v. Allstate Ins. Co.

367 So. 2d 214, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4532

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 1979 | Docket: 1329948

Cited 15 times | Published

the extent that the benefits described in Section 627.736[4] (reasonable medical expenses and lost earnings)

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01

35 So. 3d 666, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 149, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 302

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2010 | Docket: 1646266

Cited 14 times | Published

well as for the effect of the 80% limitation in F.S. 627.736(1)(a), and any deductible. 2. The definition

Orion Ins. v. Magnetic Imag. Systems I

696 So. 2d 475, 1997 WL 361853

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1997 | Docket: 1695981

Cited 14 times | Published

assignment of personal injury protection benefits." § 627.736(5), Fla.Stat. (1995). Accordingly, the contract

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Graham

541 So. 2d 160, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 882, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 1989 WL 32294

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 1989 | Docket: 1516588

Cited 14 times | Published

essentially follows the relevant portion of section 627.736(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). Garcia responded

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Famigletti

459 So. 2d 1149

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 28, 1984 | Docket: 1683280

Cited 14 times | Published

the policy did in fact provide for coverage. Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), requires that

Shaw v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

37 So. 3d 329, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6292, 2010 WL 1812596

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 2010 | Docket: 772773

Cited 13 times | Published

respect to the injury sustained. Id.; see also § 627.736(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001). The court pointed out

AIU Ins. Co. v. Daidone

760 So. 2d 1110, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8266, 2000 WL 873694

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2000 | Docket: 1324647

Cited 13 times | Published

which it otherwise would not have to pay. In section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), medical benefits

Palma v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

489 So. 2d 147, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1221

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1986 | Docket: 1528829

Cited 13 times | Published

medical services under the Florida No-Fault Act, section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1983). After appellant

Ward v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

364 So. 2d 73

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 1978 | Docket: 2514460

Cited 13 times | Published

Florida Statutes (1977) (the Act). Under Section 627.736, every insurance policy complying with the

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CC CHIROPRACTIC, LLC, a/a/o ISLANDE NAPOLEON

245 So. 3d 755

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2018 | Docket: 6333493

Cited 12 times | Published

amount State Farm determined was reasonable. See § 627.736(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010) (requiring PIP insurers

Kingsway Amigo Insurance Co. v. Ocean Health, Inc.

63 So. 3d 63, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7184, 2011 WL 1878148

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2011 | Docket: 2365280

Cited 12 times | Published

PART B FEE SCHEDULES SET FORTH IN FLA. STAT. § 627.736(5)(a)(2) WHEN THE SUBJECT PIP POLICY SPECIFIES

Norman v. Farrow

880 So. 2d 557, 2004 WL 1403295

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 2004 | Docket: 1294808

Cited 12 times | Published

parties agreed at pretrial that pursuant to section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (2003), the defendant

Goble v. Frohman

848 So. 2d 406, 2003 WL 21458282

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 2003 | Docket: 339790

Cited 12 times | Published

293. Rollins involved the construction of section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), which precluded

McKenna v. Carlson

771 So. 2d 555, 2000 WL 1298764

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 2000 | Docket: 1339221

Cited 12 times | Published

setoff issue the initial question is whether section 627.736(3),[2] Florida Statutes (dealing with setoff

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rudnick

761 So. 2d 289, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 329, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 825, 2000 WL 551033

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 4, 2000 | Docket: 1300135

Cited 12 times | Published

definition of the term "payable" found in section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1993). We have jurisdiction

Fortune Ins. Co. v. Pacheco

695 So. 2d 394, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4529, 1997 WL 209562

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1997 | Docket: 1522032

Cited 12 times | Published

Court certified the following question: WHETHER § 627.736(4)(B), FLA. STAT. REQUIRES A PIP [PERSONAL INJURY

Loewer v. New York Life Insurance

773 F. Supp. 1518, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13543, 1991 WL 192675

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 20, 1991 | Docket: 1228305

Cited 12 times | Published

governed by the Florida Statutes. See FLA.STAT. § 627.736(4)(b) and FLA.STAT. § 733.808 (1985). The Florida

Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co.

410 So. 2d 978, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19442

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 1982 | Docket: 1518463

Cited 12 times | Published

interpretation of the applicable statute, section 627.736(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), as it related

Padron v. Long Island Ins. Co.

356 So. 2d 1337, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15620

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 1978 | Docket: 1739742

Cited 12 times | Published

personal injury protection benefits under Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976), of the Florida

Main Ins. Co. v. Wiggins

349 So. 2d 638

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 1977 | Docket: 1655143

Cited 12 times | Published

insurer will pay $5,000. As to PIP benefits, § 627.736(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1975), provides in pertinent

United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Holland

283 So. 2d 381, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6636

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 4, 1973 | Docket: 1743640

Cited 12 times | Published

F.S.A. [2] F.S. § 627.736, F.S.A. [3] F.S. § 627.736, F.S.A. [4] F.S. § 627.736(4), F.S.A. [5] 10

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Salgado

22 So. 3d 594, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10733, 2009 WL 2382408

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 2009 | Docket: 1639652

Cited 11 times | Published

trial court further reasoned that, because section 627.736(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), mandated United

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Holy Cross Hosp., Inc.

961 So. 2d 328, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 453, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1228, 2007 WL 2002542

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2007 | Docket: 1515751

Cited 11 times | Published

insurer must comply with the requirements of section 627.736(10), Florida Statutes (2006), in order to pay

Perez v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.

746 So. 2d 1123, 1999 WL 816552

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 1999 | Docket: 1360705

Cited 11 times | Published

MEDICAL BENEFITS IN A LAWSUIT UNDER FLA.STAT. § 627.736 WHERE THE ONLY DEFENSE BY AN INSURER IS THAT THE

State v. MARK MARKS, PA

654 So. 2d 1184, 1995 WL 132149

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 1995 | Docket: 1303813

Cited 11 times | Published

medical examination requested by the insurer. § 627.736(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993). Finally, the confidentiality

Mansfield v. Rivero

620 So. 2d 987, 1993 WL 186037

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 1993 | Docket: 1386997

Cited 11 times | Published

`to the extent that benefits described in section 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be

International Bankers Insurance Company v. Arnone

552 So. 2d 908

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 5, 1989 | Docket: 1663481

Cited 11 times | Published

the eighty percent figure authorized under section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). In Govan, the

Pena v. Allstate Ins. Co.

463 So. 2d 1256, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 611

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 1985 | Docket: 1160911

Cited 11 times | Published

protection (including the medical benefits), see § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. (1983), the policy provides that

Griffin v. Stonewall Ins. Co.

346 So. 2d 97, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15934

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 1977 | Docket: 1734130

Cited 11 times | Published

precedent to a suit upon the policy. Pursuant to Section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), the policy

State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hauser

281 So. 2d 563, 69 A.L.R. 3d 826, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7726

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 1973 | Docket: 1676746

Cited 11 times | Published

insured, as provided for in subsection (3)(a) of § 627.736 Fla. Stat., F.S.A. Instead, as indicated above

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. River Manor Condominium Ass'n

125 So. 3d 846, 2013 WL 1441294, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5729, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 820

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 2013 | Docket: 60236093

Cited 10 times | Published

it has in other insurance contexts. See, e.g., § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2005) et. seq. It would not simply

Chiropractic v. United Automobile Insurance Co.

21 So. 3d 858, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15823, 2009 WL 3364884

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 2009 | Docket: 1656193

Cited 10 times | Published

examined Lebrun purportedly as required by section 627.736(7)(a) of the Florida Statutes. Summary judgment

Kaklamanos v. Allstate Ins. Co.

796 So. 2d 555, 2001 WL 838198

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2001 | Docket: 1249925

Cited 10 times | Published

must conform[3] to statutory requirements). Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1997) makes PIP and medpay

Derius v. Allstate Indem. Co.

723 So. 2d 271, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6581, 1998 WL 299448

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1998 | Docket: 1693520

Cited 10 times | Published

RECOVER MEDICAL BENEFITS IN A LAWSUIT UNDER SECTION 627.736, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP. 1994), MUST THE PLAINTIFF

Crooks v. ST. FARM MUT. AUTO. INS.

659 So. 2d 1266

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 1995 | Docket: 1747965

Cited 10 times | Published

providers as required by Florida Statutes, Section 627.736(4)(b). On September 29, 1990, the appellant

De Ferrari v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

613 So. 2d 101, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 628, 1993 WL 15626

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 1993 | Docket: 1511361

Cited 10 times | Published

GEICO[1] stating her position that, under section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1987),[2] the medical

Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Castagna

368 So. 2d 348, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4573

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 1979 | Docket: 1723381

Cited 10 times | Published

expressly upholding the constitutional validity of Section 627.736(4)(d)(1), Florida Statutes (1975). We have

Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America

356 So. 2d 790, 1978 Fla. LEXIS 4752

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 1978 | Docket: 1478397

Cited 10 times | Published

accepted the respondent's argument and held that Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1975), only required

Tapscott v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

330 So. 2d 475, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14995

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 1976 | Docket: 1797942

Cited 10 times | Published

injured in an accident. The trial court held that § 627.736(4)(d)3, F.S. 1975, disentitles appellant to benefits

White v. Reserve Insurance Company

299 So. 2d 661

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 1974 | Docket: 1745641

Cited 10 times | Published

action below Reserve took the position that F.S. 627.736(3)(a), F.S.A., requires that it be reimbursed

Coastal Wellness Ctrs., Inc. v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co.

309 F. Supp. 3d 1216

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2018 | Docket: 64318600

Cited 9 times | Published

("PIP") Statute, Fla. Stat. § 627.736 (2012 to date). Fla. Stat. § 627.736 sets forth a basic coverage

Geico General Insurance Co. v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc.

141 So. 3d 147, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 517, 2013 WL 3332385, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1387

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 2013 | Docket: 60241811

Cited 9 times | Published

whether the Medicare fee schedules set forth in section 627.736(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), authorized

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Curran

83 So. 3d 793, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19186, 2011 WL 6003288

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2011 | Docket: 2415516

Cited 9 times | Published

"subsequent personal injury protection benefits." § 627.736(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010). There is no similar

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Metro Injury & Rehab Center

16 So. 3d 897, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10359, 2009 WL 2243804

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 2009 | Docket: 1641384

Cited 9 times | Published

medical report, produced in accordance with section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), as a precondition

Amador v. United Auto. Ins. Co.

748 So. 2d 307, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14163, 1999 WL 973551

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 1999 | Docket: 1505053

Cited 9 times | Published

within which the insurer must pay pursuant to section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes. However, United Auto

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Barth

579 So. 2d 154, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3005, 1991 WL 44912

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 1991 | Docket: 1432786

Cited 9 times | Published

the injury and therefore affirm. Pursuant to section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1987), State Farm's policy

Hunter v. Allstate Ins. Co.

498 So. 2d 514, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2376, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10560

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 1986 | Docket: 1335261

Cited 9 times | Published

treatment a reimbursable medical benefit under section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes? The question arose

Horowitz v. American Motorist Ins. Co.

343 So. 2d 1305

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 23, 1977 | Docket: 1710581

Cited 9 times | Published

"medical" expenses to medical doctors. Rather, Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, provides for payment to

Griffin v. Travelers Indemnity Company

328 So. 2d 207

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 1976 | Docket: 1334882

Cited 9 times | Published

issued by appellant. Appellant contends that under § 627.736, Florida Statutes, relating to required personal

Royal Indemnity Co. v. GOVT. EMP. INS. CO.

307 So. 2d 458

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 1975 | Docket: 1335385

Cited 9 times | Published

PIP benefits under the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 627.736(4)(d)(4), F.S.A., which reads: "(d) The insurer

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Mance

292 So. 2d 52, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7712

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1974 | Docket: 1511642

Cited 9 times | Published

CURIAM. This appeal involves the construction of § 627.736, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., or the so-called "no fault"

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bermudez

980 So. 2d 1213, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 6149, 2008 WL 1883650

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 2008 | Docket: 1419658

Cited 8 times | Published

public importance: IS AN INSURER REQUIRED BY SECTION 627.736(7)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES TO OBTAIN A MEDICAL

Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Bailey Ex Rel. Bailey

944 So. 2d 1028, 2006 WL 1667352

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 2006 | Docket: 1156005

Cited 8 times | Published

facially insufficient claim. See § 627.425; cf. § 627.736(4)(b); Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679

Malu v. SECURITY NAT. INS. CO.

898 So. 2d 69, 2005 WL 549933

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2005 | Docket: 1732234

Cited 8 times | Published

of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2001). Malu alleged that

Maldonado v. Allstate Ins. Co.

789 So. 2d 464, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9027, 2001 WL 726002

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 29, 2001 | Docket: 43842

Cited 8 times | Published

conclude that the residence requirement in section 627.736(4)(d)(4), Florida Statutes (1993), is intended

Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co. v. Walden

759 So. 2d 7, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2174, 2000 WL 235124

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 2000 | Docket: 1421422

Cited 8 times | Published

independent medical examination as permitted under section 627.736(1)(a) and (7)(a), Florida Statutes. Based on

Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

694 So. 2d 165, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6195, 1997 WL 297476

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 1997 | Docket: 1732622

Cited 8 times | Published

municipality where the insured is seeking treatment." § 627.736(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993). Jones is a resident

US SEC. Ins. Co. v. Silva

693 So. 2d 593, 1997 WL 78409

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 26, 1997 | Docket: 435348

Cited 8 times | Published

EXAMINATION (I.M.E.), UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 627.736(a) and (b), FLORIDA STATUTES, DOES THE TERM

Crotts v. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co.

476 So. 2d 1357, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2384

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1985 | Docket: 1277555

Cited 8 times | Published

rather than medical benefits, as provided by section 627.736(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981). Bankers began

Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Worthy

447 So. 2d 998

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 1984 | Docket: 1312191

Cited 8 times | Published

original 1972 "no-fault" statutes provided in section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes, for PIP benefits of 100

US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Daly

384 So. 2d 1350

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1980 | Docket: 1678611

Cited 8 times | Published

736(4)(d)(1) and (3) must be read in conjunction with Section 627.736(1). Stonewall Insurance Company v. Wolfe, 372

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Pridgen

339 So. 2d 1164, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15802

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1976 | Docket: 1436845

Cited 8 times | Published

[1] Sec. 627.730, et seq., Fla. Stat. [2] See § 627.736(4)(d)(1), Fla. Stat. [3] Cf. Feltner v. Hartford

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Castaneda

339 So. 2d 679, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15991

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 1976 | Docket: 1436662

Cited 8 times | Published

for each of three vehicles). Florida Statutes § 627.736(2)(a) provides in pertinent part: "Required personal

Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Collier

334 So. 2d 148, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14602

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 1976 | Docket: 1309790

Cited 8 times | Published

under the policy. This exclusion is authorized by § 627.736 (2), Fla. Stat., 18A F.S.A. After the parties

Hernandez v. Travelers Insurance Company

331 So. 2d 329

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 1976 | Docket: 1287814

Cited 8 times | Published

against an insurer and in favor of an insured. Section 627.736(4)(b), sets out the time period within which

Staley v. Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co.

328 So. 2d 241, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14817

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 1976 | Docket: 1699521

Cited 8 times | Published

benefits under Caldwell's policy by operation of § 627.736(4)(d) 4a, F.S. 1973. That subsection provides

Farley v. Gateway Insurance Company

302 So. 2d 177

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 30, 1974 | Docket: 1742496

Cited 8 times | Published

judgment for Gateway. We reverse. As material here, § 627.736(4)(d) 4., supra, reads in part as follows: "(d)

William Joyce v. Federated National Insurance Company

228 So. 3d 1122, 2017 WL 4684352

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 19, 2017 | Docket: 6172319

Cited 7 times | Published

ch. 2012-197, Laws of Fla. As codified in section 627.736(8), Florida Statutes, this legislative change

Northwoods Sports Medicine & Physical Rehabilitation, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

137 So. 3d 1049, 2014 WL 837091, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2978

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 2014 | Docket: 60240147

Cited 7 times | Published

200% of the Medicare fee schedule pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008). Northwoods

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. a 1st Choice Healthcare Systems

21 So. 3d 124, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16376, 2009 WL 3616293

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 2009 | Docket: 124092

Cited 7 times | Published

covered loss and of the amount of same," under section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2004). Concluding

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Rhodes & Anderson, D.C., P.A.

18 So. 3d 1059, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 4342, 2008 WL 786856

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2008 | Docket: 1180023

Cited 7 times | Published

tests before obtaining a valid report under section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), which requires

US SEC. Ins. Co. v. Cahuasqui

760 So. 2d 1101, 2000 WL 873183

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2000 | Docket: 419539

Cited 7 times | Published

necessary or related to the automobile accident. See § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (1997). The fact that an insurance

FORTUNE INS. v. Everglades Diagnostics

721 So. 2d 384, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14302, 1998 WL 821752

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1998 | Docket: 1322847

Cited 7 times | Published

Miami, for respondents. FARMER, Judge. In section 627.736(4)(b), the legislature has provided that personal

Pizzarelli v. Rollins

704 So. 2d 630, 1997 WL 715805

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 19, 1997 | Docket: 1355103

Cited 7 times | Published

Appellee, to the contrary, maintained that section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1991), was controlling.

Martinez v. Fortune Ins. Co.

684 So. 2d 201, 1996 WL 590629

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1996 | Docket: 1740689

Cited 7 times | Published

be one of great public importance: WHETHER SECTION 627.736(4)(b), FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRES A PIP INSURER

Kokotis v. DeMarco

679 So. 2d 296, 1996 WL 430845

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 1996 | Docket: 1665967

Cited 7 times | Published

Statutes (1991), the tort exemption statute. Section 627.736(3) provides that an injured party shall have

Levy v. Travelers Ins. Co.

580 So. 2d 190, 1991 WL 50104

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 1991 | Docket: 1716897

Cited 7 times | Published

regardless of fault. The coverage is mandated by section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), in all policies

Shupack v. Allstate Ins. Co.

367 So. 2d 1103

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 1979 | Docket: 1697752

Cited 7 times | Published

constituted bad faith, as contemplated by Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1977), which entitled him

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Salido

354 So. 2d 963, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15189

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 7, 1978 | Docket: 1205167

Cited 7 times | Published

services ... in cases involving no insurance." Section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1975) [emphasis added]

Tavares v. Allstate Ins. Co.

342 So. 2d 551, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15302

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 1977 | Docket: 470086

Cited 7 times | Published

authorities in declaring the rights of the parties: Section 627.736(4)(d)4 a, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976); Section

Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Regalado

339 So. 2d 277, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15945

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 1976 | Docket: 1436463

Cited 7 times | Published

Automobile Reparations Reform Act, Florida Statutes, § 627.736. The trial court, after extensive discovery, entered

Kathy Johnson v. Omega Insurance Company

200 So. 3d 1207, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 415, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2148, 2016 WL 5477795

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 2016 | Docket: 4448478

Cited 6 times | Published

court denied the fees because, pursuant to section 627.736, the insurance company paid the balance within

Tampa Chiropractic Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

141 So. 3d 1256, 2014 WL 3375017

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2014 | Docket: 453316

Cited 6 times | Published

request for such documents was authorized by section 627.736(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2010). 1

United Automobile Insurance v. Millennium Diagnostic Imaging Center, Inc.

12 So. 3d 242, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4203, 2009 WL 1211721

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 6, 2009 | Docket: 2180539

Cited 6 times | Published

received, Millennium Diagnostic, pursuant to section 627.736(11), Florida Statutes (2003), sent a demand

Progressive American Ins. Co. v. Stand-Up MRI of Orlando

990 So. 2d 3, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 10525, 2008 WL 2695876

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2008 | Docket: 1374531

Cited 6 times | Published

provision, or the PIP statute, is codified at section 627.736 and is "an integral part of the no-fault statutory

United Auto. v. Diagnostics of S. Florida

921 So. 2d 23, 2006 WL 120177

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 2006 | Docket: 1658376

Cited 6 times | Published

allegedly owed statutory interest pursuant to section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1994), on PIP benefits

Felgenhauer v. Bonds

891 So. 2d 1043, 2004 WL 2008272

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2004 | Docket: 1349893

Cited 6 times | Published

Felgenhauer's motion to set off $10,000 PIP benefits. Section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (2001), provides for a

Millennium Diagnostic v. Security Nat. Ins.

882 So. 2d 1027, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11731, 2004 WL 1780923

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 2004 | Docket: 1686220

Cited 6 times | Published

services. Millennium claimed that pursuant to section 627.736(5)(b)5, Fla. Stat. (2001), it should have been

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sestile

821 So. 2d 1244, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10844, 2002 WL 1756443

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 2002 | Docket: 1236155

Cited 6 times | Published

maintenance or use of a motor vehicle." See also § 627.736(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995) (requiring PIP carriers

Livingston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

774 So. 2d 716, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2144, 2000 WL 234691

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 2000 | Docket: 1330531

Cited 6 times | Published

the resolution of disputed PIP claims. Under section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1993), a health care

McElroy v. Perry

753 So. 2d 121, 2000 WL 3913

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 2000 | Docket: 1729103

Cited 6 times | Published

injury protection (PIP) carrier pursuant to section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (1995). Dr. Phillips concluded

Pate v. Renfroe

715 So. 2d 1094, 1998 WL 476160

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 1998 | Docket: 1716977

Cited 6 times | Published

$10,000 set-off for PIP benefits pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1995). The trial court then

Fortune Ins. Co. v. Exilus

608 So. 2d 139, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11921, 1992 WL 324864

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1992 | Docket: 1732553

Cited 6 times | Published

parties agree that the controlling statute is section 627.736(1), which requires that automobile insurance

Smey v. Williams

608 So. 2d 886, 1992 WL 312826

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 30, 1992 | Docket: 1449377

Cited 6 times | Published

insurance (Personal Injury Protection) required by section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes. Section 627.737(2), Florida

Fladd v. Fortune Ins. Co.

530 So. 2d 388, 1988 WL 82685

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 1988 | Docket: 1267933

Cited 6 times | Published

the accrual of the cause of action. Citing section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), which provides:

Govan v. International Bankers Ins. Co.

521 So. 2d 1086, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 181, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 340, 1988 WL 20997

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 1988 | Docket: 1347860

Cited 6 times | Published

000 for any single accident, as mandated by section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). A $2,000 deductible

Fischer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

495 So. 2d 909, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2165, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10051

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1986 | Docket: 1750854

Cited 6 times | Published

concerning personal injury protection benefits, § 627.736(4)(d)2., Fla. Stat. (1981), provides that the

Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gifford

434 So. 2d 1015

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 1983 | Docket: 1318248

Cited 6 times | Published

insurance issued in a foreign state in view of section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1981), which prohibits

Banyas v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

359 So. 2d 506, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16072

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 1978 | Docket: 1418319

Cited 6 times | Published

under its insurance policy for this expense. § 627.736, Florida Statutes, requires that every insurance

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'KELLEY

349 So. 2d 717, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16548

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 22, 1977 | Docket: 1655140

Cited 6 times | Published

of a motorcycle and thus was precluded by Section 627.736, Florida statutes (Supp. 1976), from coverage

Reid v. Allstate Ins. Co.

344 So. 2d 877

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 1977 | Docket: 474656

Cited 6 times | Published

personal injury protection benefits due under Section 627.736. Except for providing security for this "no

Benton v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS.

295 So. 2d 344

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 1974 | Docket: 1762236

Cited 6 times | Published

of dismissal reciting: "In construing Florida Statute 627.736(b) and the coverage thereunder provided

Negron v. Travelers Insurance Company

282 So. 2d 28, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7529, 60 A.L.R. 3d 647

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 28, 1973 | Docket: 1235064

Cited 6 times | Published

must be answered in the affirmative. Fla. Stat. § 627.736(4)(d), F.S.A., provides as follows: "(d) The insurer

Merly Nunez v. Geico General Insurance Company

685 F.3d 1205, 2012 WL 2548404, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6634

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 3, 2012 | Docket: 846947

Cited 5 times | Published

determine whether Florida’s PIP Statute, Fla. Stat. § 627.736, permits EUOs as a prerequisite to receiving PIP

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Affiliated Healthcare Centers, Inc.

43 So. 3d 127, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12405, 2010 WL 3324683

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2010 | Docket: 60295408

Cited 5 times | Published

a reasonably requested IME as provided in section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (2005), is a condition

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hollywood Injury Rehab Center

27 So. 3d 743, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1366, 2010 WL 445457

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 2010 | Docket: 1203765

Cited 5 times | Published

independent medical examination as required by section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes. We grant the writ

Caruso v. Baumle

880 So. 2d 540, 2004 WL 1403170

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 2004 | Docket: 1294854

Cited 5 times | Published

follows: (1) IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE, DOES SECTION 627.736(3) REQUIRE THAT EVIDENCE OF PIP BENEFITS FOR

PROF. CONS. SERV. v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co.

849 So. 2d 446, 2003 WL 21654258

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2003 | Docket: 447593

Cited 5 times | Published

protection benefits, as set forth in Florida Statute § 627.736(5)(a), is entitled to recover *447 PIP benefits

Nationwide v. Central Fla. Physiatrists

851 So. 2d 762, 2003 WL 21474208

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2003 | Docket: 1312988

Cited 5 times | Published

had failed to comply with the provisions of section 627.736(10) of the Florida Statutes (1999) which authorized

TA Enterprises, Inc. v. Olarte, Inc.

835 So. 2d 1235, 2003 WL 187190

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 2003 | Docket: 1754859

Cited 5 times | Published

for a trial de novo in the circuit court. Section 627.736(5) states that the provisions of chapter 682

Allstate Indem. Co. v. Wise

818 So. 2d 524, 2001 WL 574907

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2001 | Docket: 1169584

Cited 5 times | Published

See ch. 71-252, Laws of Fla. (now codified at § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2000)). The public policy shift was

Hartford Ins. Co. v. ST. MARY'S HOSP.

771 So. 2d 1210, 2000 WL 1582749

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 2000 | Docket: 1339846

Cited 5 times | Published

assignment pursuant to Florida's No Fault laws, section 627.736(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), nor did he

Bradford v. State

740 So. 2d 569, 1999 WL 436823

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1999 | Docket: 1746301

Cited 5 times | Published

personal injury protection benefits required by § 627.736. Any person who violates the provisions of this

Delta Cas. Co. v. Pinnacle Medical, Inc.

721 So. 2d 321

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 2, 1998 | Docket: 1323285

Cited 5 times | Published

compel arbitration and declaring a portion of section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1995) to be unconstitutional

Assi v. FLORIDA. AUTO AUCTION OF ORLANDO

717 So. 2d 588, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11309, 1998 WL 558762

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 1998 | Docket: 1681371

Cited 5 times | Published

benefits of Florida's no-fault law. § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. [2] § 627.736(3), Fla. Stat. (1995). [3] § 627

Leszczynski v. Allianz Insurance

176 F.R.D. 659, 39 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 908, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21419, 1997 WL 784584

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1997 | Docket: 66315816

Cited 5 times | Published

benefits in the amount of $10,000 pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes. Plaintiffs propose a subclass

STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. v. Gonnella

677 So. 2d 1355, 1996 WL 446525

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 1996 | Docket: 1266527

Cited 5 times | Published

Judge. This case focuses on the requirement of section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1995)[1], that once a

Howell-Demarest v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

673 So. 2d 526, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4401, 1996 WL 210119

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 1, 1996 | Docket: 1671256

Cited 5 times | Published

so automatically, because the PIP statute, section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1975), made PIP coverage

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. Swearingen

590 So. 2d 506, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12076, 1991 WL 253838

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 1991 | Docket: 1512609

Cited 5 times | Published

coverage is optional, its scope is established by section 627.736(4)(f), Florida Statutes (1989), which reads

McClellan v. Industrial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.

475 So. 2d 1015, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2225

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1985 | Docket: 1301980

Cited 5 times | Published

Fla. Stat. (1983). The benefits described in section 627.736(1) are limited to 80% of medical expenses incurred

Epperson v. Dixie Ins. Co.

461 So. 2d 172

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 1984 | Docket: 1514598

Cited 5 times | Published

barred from recovering PIP benefits under section 627.736, Florida Statutes, from the Florida owner's

Scherzer v. Beron

455 So. 2d 441

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 1984 | Docket: 1692641

Cited 5 times | Published

where security has been provided.[2] Reading section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), one discovers

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chapman

415 So. 2d 47, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20028

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 12, 1982 | Docket: 459065

Cited 5 times | Published

owner while he is occupying a motor vehicle. § 627.736(4)(d)1, Fla. Stat. (1981). Any insurance policy

Ward v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins.

375 So. 2d 898

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 1979 | Docket: 1352956

Cited 5 times | Published

respect to which security is required ...". Section 627.736(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes (1975). After the

Fernandez v. Alonso

375 So. 2d 8

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1979 | Docket: 1352807

Cited 5 times | Published

the defendant carrier. Affirmed. NOTES [1] See § 627.736(4)(d)(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1977)

Longman v. Travelers Ins. Co.

371 So. 2d 533

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 1979 | Docket: 1786227

Cited 5 times | Published

provisions of its policy with appellant. See, § 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975). The order appealed is

Industrial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cowan

364 So. 2d 810, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17055

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 1978 | Docket: 461797

Cited 5 times | Published

personal injury protection provision, pursuant to Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975 and 1976). The policy

National Car Rental v. Sanchez

349 So. 2d 829

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 13, 1977 | Docket: 1226419

Cited 5 times | Published

matter, when it related to PIP benefits. See: Section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1976). Applying principles

Camacho v. Allstate Insurance Company

310 So. 2d 330, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13979

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 1975 | Docket: 1245548

Cited 5 times | Published

guidelines for payments of benefits thereunder in § 627.736(4)(d), Fla. Stat., which states: "(d) The insurer

Hughes v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.

294 So. 2d 398, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7249

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 1974 | Docket: 1736314

Cited 5 times | Published

support a claim under the "no-fault act." Florida Statute 627.736, F.S.A., clearly reflects that an insurer

Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Perez

111 So. 3d 960, 2013 WL 1748554, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6626

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2013 | Docket: 60230929

Cited 4 times | Published

UNDER MEDICARE *961PART B” FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f), FLORIDA STATUTES (2009)? We answer

MRI Associates of America, LLC v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

61 So. 3d 462, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6346, 2011 WL 1661402

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 2011 | Docket: 348889

Cited 4 times | Published

calculate the charges in accordance *464 with section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (2006). MRI Associates

Comprehensive Health Center, Inc. v. United Automobile Insurance Co.

56 So. 3d 41, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19841, 2010 WL 5373019

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 2010 | Docket: 60298588

Cited 4 times | Published

unreasonable is at issue because of the language of section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (2009), which states that

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hyma Medical Center, Inc.

22 So. 3d 699, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16830, 2009 WL 3763145

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 2009 | Docket: 1176957

Cited 4 times | Published

examination and treatment records [of the insured]." § 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2008). The appellate

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Perez

21 So. 3d 886, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16372, 2009 WL 3616069

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 2009 | Docket: 2525775

Cited 4 times | Published

any or some of an insured's medical bills, section 627.736(4)(b) of the Florida Statutes applies. That

Progressive American Ins. Co. v. Rural/Metro Corp.

994 So. 2d 1202, 2008 WL 4889128

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 2008 | Docket: 2576598

Cited 4 times | Published

Statutes. Subsection 627.736(6) is inapplicable. Section 627.736 requires that all automobile insurance policies

Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. Scoma

975 So. 2d 461, 2007 WL 1296007

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 2007 | Docket: 1425596

Cited 4 times | Published

injury protection coverage required to satisfy section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2000), and *466 the uninsured

USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Shelton

932 So. 2d 605, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10785, 2006 WL 1791708

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 2006 | Docket: 1684870

Cited 4 times | Published

and $5000 for additional medical benefits. See § 627.736(1), (1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). The Sheltons then

Scott v. Progressive Express Ins. Co.

932 So. 2d 475, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8947, 2006 WL 1541047

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 2006 | Docket: 1684874

Cited 4 times | Published

(PIP) provisions in the policy as required by section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002). Because Progressive

Progressive Exp. v. Physician's Injury Care

906 So. 2d 1125, 2005 WL 1250305

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 27, 2005 | Docket: 1775283

Cited 4 times | Published

statutes underlie our conclusions. First, section 627.736(8) authorizes an award of attorney's fees with

Atlanta Cas. Co. v. OPEN MRI OF PINELLAS

911 So. 2d 135, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7239, 2005 WL 1162977

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2005 | Docket: 1751809

Cited 4 times | Published

payment for the MRI under the provisions of section 627.736(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes (2001), which states

Simon v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co.

904 So. 2d 449, 2005 WL 1026613

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 2005 | Docket: 1365334

Cited 4 times | Published

reduced or denied, that, as established by section 627.736, Florida Statutes (PIP statute), upon submission

Padilla v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

870 So. 2d 827, 2003 WL 21697054

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2003 | Docket: 1697952

Cited 4 times | Published

providers. The appellants' claims are based upon § 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), which requires

Malu v. SECURITY NAT. INS. CO.

848 So. 2d 373, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7498, 2003 WL 21180173

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2003 | Docket: 1309351

Cited 4 times | Published

The applicable provision of our PIP statute, section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), includes as

January v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.

838 So. 2d 604, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1756, 2003 WL 327607

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2003 | Docket: 461385

Cited 4 times | Published

under oath, only the discovery referenced in section 627.736(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (1999). January's

Padilla v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

832 So. 2d 916, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 18630, 2002 WL 31833726

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 19, 2002 | Docket: 1700071

Cited 4 times | Published

travel to and from medical appointments. See § 627.736(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); Hunter v. Allstate Ins

Bogosian v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

817 So. 2d 968, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7384, 2002 WL 1058503

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 2002 | Docket: 1430278

Cited 4 times | Published

the fact that he received those benefits. See § 627.736(3), Fla. Stat. (1995). For the stated reasons

FEDERATED NAT. INS. CO. v. Physicians Charter Services

788 So. 2d 403, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9136, 2001 WL 746651

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2001 | Docket: 2589671

Cited 4 times | Published

for a bodily injury covered by PIP insurance." § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2000). There is no provision in Florida's

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tienna

780 So. 2d 1010, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4025, 2001 WL 313692

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2001 | Docket: 1298742

Cited 4 times | Published

contract; count II, failure to comply with section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1995); and count III, bad

Superior Ins. Co. v. Libert

776 So. 2d 360, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 984, 2001 WL 85545

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2001 | Docket: 422040

Cited 4 times | Published

ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE 627.736 AND 627.428(1) IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE

State v. Marks

758 So. 2d 1131, 2000 WL 313507

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 2000 | Docket: 1404151

Cited 4 times | Published

medical examination requested by the insurer. § 627.736(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993). Finally, the confidentiality

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ivey

728 So. 2d 282, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1358, 1999 WL 68782

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 1999 | Docket: 1254330

Cited 4 times | Published

cost of the services described in the bill. Section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that benefits

Tsutras v. Duhe

685 So. 2d 979, 1997 WL 1677

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1997 | Docket: 1415213

Cited 4 times | Published

of one seeking PIP benefits, we construed section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes, as requiring that

Niglio v. OMAHA PROPERTY AND CAS. INS.

679 So. 2d 323, 1996 WL 471144

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 21, 1996 | Docket: 1215412

Cited 4 times | Published

shooting. Coverage is therefore controlled by section 627.736(4)(d)1, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), which

US SEC. INS. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys.

678 So. 2d 872, 1996 WL 460714

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 14, 1996 | Docket: 1470522

Cited 4 times | Published

its motion to compel arbitration pursuant to section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1995)[1] of a statutory

Cruz v. Union General Ins.

586 So. 2d 91, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9442, 1991 WL 188064

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 1991 | Docket: 1487703

Cited 4 times | Published

protection. Upon the insurer's request pursuant to section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (1989), Cruz underwent

Fortune Ins. Co. v. McGhee

571 So. 2d 546, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9420, 1990 WL 202686

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 1990 | Docket: 1653333

Cited 4 times | Published

21 exclusive of costs and attorneys' fees. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1985) requires that all

Klipper v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co.

571 So. 2d 26, 1990 WL 109485

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 1990 | Docket: 1173187

Cited 4 times | Published

for a medical examination, made pursuant to section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (1989). However, Klipper

Dubrian v. Allstate Indem. Co.

538 So. 2d 151, 1989 WL 11954

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 1989 | Docket: 472288

Cited 4 times | Published

contends that the trial court erred because section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1987), the Florida Motor

Farmer v. Protective Cas. Ins. Co.

530 So. 2d 356, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1791, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3450, 1988 WL 77943

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 1988 | Docket: 1267688

Cited 4 times | Published

objective evidence of any residual injury. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1983), provides that "every

Farmer v. Protective Cas. Ins. Co.

530 So. 2d 356, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1791, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3450, 1988 WL 77943

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 1988 | Docket: 1267688

Cited 4 times | Published

objective evidence of any residual injury. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1983), provides that "every

Van Sickle v. Allstate Ins. Co.

503 So. 2d 1288, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 448, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11922

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1987 | Docket: 1733158

Cited 4 times | Published

Revitz v. Baya, 355 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 1977). [2] § 627.736(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985). [3] Dr. Urbach testified

INTERN. BANKERS INS. CO. v. Govan

502 So. 2d 913, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 1986 | Docket: 1180646

Cited 4 times | Published

of $5,887.45. Pursuant to the provisions of section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), International

South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Arnold

467 So. 2d 324, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 410, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12386

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 1985 | Docket: 1274409

Cited 4 times | Published

at ten percent rather than the twelve percent. § 627.736(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1979). We amend the judgment

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Link

416 So. 2d 875, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20544

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 1982 | Docket: 1224648

Cited 4 times | Published

caused by physical contact with a motor vehicle. § 627.736(4)(d)(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1980). Section 627

Fernandez v. South Carolina Ins. Co.

408 So. 2d 753

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 12, 1982 | Docket: 2488955

Cited 4 times | Published

available to appellant under appellee's PIP coverage. § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1980). Following an automobile

Bedgood v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.

384 So. 2d 1363, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17084

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 1980 | Docket: 1678563

Cited 4 times | Published

vehicles for which security is compelled. Section 627.736(4)(d). This court has consistently held that

Ridenour v. Sharek

388 So. 2d 222

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 1980 | Docket: 420002

Cited 4 times | Published

injury under § 627.736(1)(a) [or which would be payable for such injury under § 627.736(1)(a)] or which

Malen v. American States Ins. Co.

376 So. 2d 473, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16068

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 1979 | Docket: 1411320

Cited 4 times | Published

issued to Diane Loos. The trial court held that Section 627.736(4)(d)4a, Florida Statutes (1975), disentitles

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Wolfson

348 So. 2d 661, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16364

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 1977 | Docket: 1761104

Cited 4 times | Published

law when it failed to apply Section 627.736(1)[1]*662 and Section 627.736(4)(e),[2] Florida Statutes (1975)

Williams v. Gateway Insurance Company

331 So. 2d 301, 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4310

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1976 | Docket: 537621

Cited 4 times | Published

protection benefits paid, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.736(3)(b). The circuit court later entered an amended

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Gordon

319 So. 2d 36, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15247

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 9, 1975 | Docket: 444124

Cited 4 times | Published

the lower court. [4] Specifically F.S. 627.736(3)(a) and F.S. 627.736(3)(b). [5] See also State Farm Automobile

Gateway Insurance Company v. Butler

293 So. 2d 738, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7648

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 1974 | Docket: 2547271

Cited 4 times | Published

insurer for recovery of benefits as provided for in § 627.736(1) Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The insurer contended against

Allstate Insurance Company v. Orthopedic Specialists, etc.

212 So. 3d 973, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 38, 2017 WL 372092, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 194

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 2017 | Docket: 4574079

Cited 3 times | Published

permissive Medicare fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2009), to limit

Medical Center of the Palm Beaches v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.

202 So. 3d 88, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13218

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 31, 2016 | Docket: 60257302

Cited 3 times | Published

additional payment, explaining that, pursuant to section 627.736(l)(a)(4), Florida Statutes, $2,500 had already

Sendy Enivert v. Progressive Select Insurance Company

809 F.3d 583

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 30, 2015 | Docket: 3024879

Cited 3 times | Published

Ch. 87-226 (West); see Fla. Stat. § 627.736(1)(a) (2015). The Florida legislature amended

Mercury Insurance Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Central

182 So. 3d 661, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15325, 2015 WL 6022040

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 2015 | Docket: 60252800

Cited 3 times | Published

(“EPCF”), which submits bills in accordance with section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is entitled to have

Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Stand-Up MRI of Tallahassee, P.A.

188 So. 3d 1, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3867

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 2015 | Docket: 60254197

Cited 3 times | Published

use the Medicare fee schedules referenced in § 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes. I. The basic facts

Millennium Diagnostic Imaging Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

129 So. 3d 1086, 2013 WL 5429556, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15393, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2077

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2013 | Docket: 60237286

Cited 3 times | Published

statutory requests for information pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2010). The requests, sent

Nunez v. Geico General Insurance

117 So. 3d 388, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 440, 2013 WL 3214401, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1315

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2013 | Docket: 60232657

Cited 3 times | Published

Eleventh Circuit asks “[w]hether, under FLA. STAT. § 627.736, an insurer can require an insured to attend an

Chiropractic One, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile

92 So. 3d 871, 2012 WL 2465012, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10571

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 29, 2012 | Docket: 60310361

Cited 3 times | Published

and application of section 627.736(5)(b)l.c., Florida Statutes (2010). Section 627.736(5)(b)l.c. reads as

American Optical Corp. v. Spiewak

73 So. 3d 120, 2011 WL 2652189

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 8, 2011 | Docket: 60303352

Cited 3 times | Published

of the statutory presuit notice provision, section 627.736 did not require an insured to provide notice

Central Magnetic Imaging Open MRI of Plantation, Ltd. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

789 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63698, 2011 WL 2247821

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 2011 | Docket: 1992045

Cited 3 times | Published

contracts and is in violation of Florida Statute section 627.736. (See id. ¶ 3). It contends State Farm improperly

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Hamilton

43 So. 3d 746, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9885, 2010 WL 2671808

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2010 | Docket: 60295468

Cited 3 times | Published

albeit in an incremental manner. See, e.g., § 627.736(3), Fla. Stat. (2009) (precluding insured motorist

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Professional Medical Group, Inc.

26 So. 3d 21, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18405, 2009 WL 4281277

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2009 | Docket: 1116377

Cited 3 times | Published

acknowledgment form ("D and A form"), as described in section 627.736(5)(e), Florida Statutes (2004); and (2) Box

Central Magnetic Imaging Open MRI of Plantation, Ltd. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.

22 So. 3d 782, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 17257, 2009 WL 3837194

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 2009 | Docket: 60267104

Cited 3 times | Published

bill because it had failed to comply with section 627.736(7)(a), which requires an insurer to obtain

Altamonte Springs Imaging, L.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

12 So. 3d 850, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8216, 2009 WL 1531610

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 2009 | Docket: 1646875

Cited 3 times | Published

magnetic resonance imaging services under section 627.736(5)(b)5, Florida Statutes (2001). We affirm

GEICO General Ins. Co. v. FEP

972 So. 2d 966, 2007 WL 4458173

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2007 | Docket: 1650507

Cited 3 times | Published

court expressly concluded: No provision of section 627.736, Florida Statutes, dictates that an insurer

Shenandoah Chiropractic v. National Specialty Insurance

526 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89158, 2007 WL 4276531

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 2007 | Docket: 808349

Cited 3 times | Published

an intent to initiate litigation." Fla. Stat. § 627.736(11)(a). This provision goes on to specify particular

Coral Imaging Services v. Geico Indem. Ins.

955 So. 2d 11, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16469, 2006 WL 2819614

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 4, 2006 | Docket: 1659265

Cited 3 times | Published

Circuit Court Appellate Division interpreting section 627.736(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1999). As the decision

Department of Health v. Merritt

919 So. 2d 561, 2006 WL 20488

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 2006 | Docket: 1269257

Cited 3 times | Published

insured. Accordingly, the Legislature enacted section 627.736(5)(b)(6), Florida Statutes, which provides

Stewart v. Midland Life Ins. Co.

899 So. 2d 331, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2241, 2005 WL 433201

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 2005 | Docket: 755871

Cited 3 times | Published

claim to be processed within a specific time. Cf. § 627.736(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001) (PIP benefits are overdue

ADVANCED DIAGNOSTICS v. Allstate Ins.

888 So. 2d 663, 2004 WL 2347554

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 2004 | Docket: 2571070

Cited 3 times | Published

under Medicare Part B" as used in Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(b)5 refer only to Medicare's "participating

Garcia v. Arraga

872 So. 2d 266, 2004 WL 384187

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 2004 | Docket: 1706686

Cited 3 times | Published

Statutory Provisions Section 768.76(1) and Section 627.736(3) of the Florida Statutes are two separate

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jewell

862 So. 2d 79, 2003 WL 22681113

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 2003 | Docket: 1762561

Cited 3 times | Published

unresolved issues. Both trial courts held that section 627.736(10), Florida Statutes (2000), sets forth the

Magnetic Imaging Systems, I, Ltd. v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

847 So. 2d 987, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3133, 2003 WL 1040146

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2003 | Docket: 1289915

Cited 3 times | Published

patient-assignor's benefits as mandated by section 627.736(4)(b). Rather than ruling on the motion for

Allstate Indem. Co. v. De La Rosa

800 So. 2d 245, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12880, 2001 WL 1040929

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2001 | Docket: 1507588

Cited 3 times | Published

alleged that Allstate, his PIP insurer, violated section 627.736, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996) by failing to

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jones

789 So. 2d 504, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9717, 2001 WL 788357

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2001 | Docket: 1696137

Cited 3 times | Published

RECOVER MEDICAL BENEFITS IN A LAWSUIT UNDER SECTION 627.736, FLORIDA STATUTES, WHERE THE ONLY DEFENSE BY

Rader v. Allstate Ins. Co.

789 So. 2d 1045, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7843, 2001 WL 609894

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2001 | Docket: 1325839

Cited 3 times | Published

precedent to an action under Florida Statute section 627.736(4)(b), because she did not allege that she

Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Marzulli

788 So. 2d 1031, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3197, 2001 WL 245963

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2001 | Docket: 1286579

Cited 3 times | Published

summary judgment as to liability. He argued that section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), provided a

Kaminester v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

775 So. 2d 981, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15202, 2000 WL 1726970

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2000 | Docket: 1295585

Cited 3 times | Published

such information was not within the ambit of section 627.736(6)(b).[2] After being pressed by State Farm

Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Southeast Diagnostics, Inc.

766 So. 2d 229, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 909, 2000 WL 121801

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2000 | Docket: 1697677

Cited 3 times | Published

rephrase as follows: IS AN INSURER REQUIRED BY SECTION 627.736(7)(a)[1], FLORIDA *230 STATUTES TO OBTAIN A

Omni Ins. Co. v. Special Care Clinic, Inc.

708 So. 2d 314, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2426, 1998 WL 107313

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1998 | Docket: 541956

Cited 3 times | Published

Clinic, Inc. The circuit court concluded that section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1995), is ambiguous as

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rudnick

706 So. 2d 389, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1385, 1998 WL 63836

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1998 | Docket: 1682440

Cited 3 times | Published

provided under this section. (Emphasis supplied). Section 627.736(3), dealing with PIP benefits, states that

Southeast Diagnostic Services v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO.

697 So. 2d 988, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9014, 1997 WL 446919

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 1997 | Docket: 134333

Cited 3 times | Published

assignee's claim against the insurer for payment. See § 627.736(5) Fla. Stat. (1995) (motor vehicle liability

Fortune Ins. Co. v. USA DIAGNOSTICS

684 So. 2d 208, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11931, 1996 WL 655746

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 1996 | Docket: 1740809

Cited 3 times | Published

failed to timely pay PIP claims, as mandated by section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes, and seeks damages

UNDERWRITERS GUAR. INS. v. Therrien

640 So. 2d 234, 1994 WL 414607

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 1994 | Docket: 1371382

Cited 3 times | Published

maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle" in section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1983), requires a nexus

Odom v. Carney

625 So. 2d 850, 1993 WL 281429

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 1993 | Docket: 1517506

Cited 3 times | Published

with full force here. [3] Defendant cited section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1991), for the proposition

Interamerican Car Rental, Inc. v. SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY

615 So. 2d 244, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2468, 1993 WL 63490

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 1993 | Docket: 1184681

Cited 3 times | Published

protection coverage as required by § 324.021(7) and § 627.736. (2) Each rental or lease agreement between the

Vega v. Travelers Indem. Co.

520 So. 2d 73, 1988 WL 8118

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 1988 | Docket: 1300658

Cited 3 times | Published

was thereby absolved from liability under section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1985). Travelers offered

Doyle v. Faford

517 So. 2d 778, 1988 WL 198

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 1988 | Docket: 1527954

Cited 3 times | Published

tort action where security has been provided. Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), applicable in

BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD v. Matthews

473 So. 2d 831, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1912, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15204

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 1985 | Docket: 451496

Cited 3 times | Published

do nothing to prejudice such rights. [3] Section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent

PROTECTIVE CAS. INS. CO. v. Hernandez

450 So. 2d 864, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13076

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 1, 1984 | Docket: 1433580

Cited 3 times | Published

to enter judgment for appellant. NOTES [1] Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1983) provides in part:

CORALLUZZO BY AND THROUGH CORALLUZZO v. Fass

435 So. 2d 262

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 1983 | Docket: 1328629

Cited 3 times | Published

(1981) (regulating reports by hospitals), and section 627.736(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1981) (regulating

Craft v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co.

432 So. 2d 1343

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 1983 | Docket: 1264016

Cited 3 times | Published

injury protection benefits are payable under § 627.736 in amounts determinable irrespective of fault

Arnold v. South Carolina Ins. Co.

425 So. 2d 1164, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18443

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 1983 | Docket: 1181904

Cited 3 times | Published

agree that insurance benefits are due below. Section 627.736(4)(d)(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides

Holloway v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

370 So. 2d 452, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14628

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 1979 | Docket: 364826

Cited 3 times | Published

insurance law that PIP coverage was "primary". Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1975). The appellants

STATE FARM AUTO. INS. CO. v. Kraver

364 So. 2d 1259, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17096

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 1978 | Docket: 1513826

Cited 3 times | Published

the owner of the second motor vehicle under Section 627.736(4)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976) of the

Chappelear v. Allstate Ins. Co.

347 So. 2d 477

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1977 | Docket: 2569466

Cited 3 times | Published

appellant was driving when injured in an accident. Section 627.736(2), Florida Statutes (1975) provides, in respect

Unigard Insurance Company v. Davis

299 So. 2d 667

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 1974 | Docket: 1745642

Cited 3 times | Published

counterclaims by which appellant sought, under Section 627.736(3)(a), subtraction of, reimbursement, and/or

Johnson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

297 So. 2d 858, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6897

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 1974 | Docket: 1510423

Cited 3 times | Published

to the extent that the benefits described in § 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable

Catches v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co.

295 So. 2d 116

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1974 | Docket: 150414

Cited 3 times | Published

liability insurance coverage paid pursuant to Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. After payment

Gregory Haskin Chiropractic Clinics, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

391 F. Supp. 3d 1151

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 2019 | Docket: 64325411

Cited 2 times | Published

injury protection ("PIP") statute, Fla. Stat. § 627.736. On December 28, 2018, the Florida Supreme Court

Coral Gables Chiropractic Pllc v. United Automobile Insurance Co.

199 So. 3d 292, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4023, 2016 WL 1039094

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2016 | Docket: 3044892

Cited 2 times | Published

medical services were reasonable. Because section 627.736(4)(b)(6) allows an insurer to dispute the reasonableness

GEICO Indemnity Co. v. Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc.

159 So. 3d 151, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20022, 2014 WL 6911333

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 2014 | Docket: 60294046

Cited 2 times | Published

on the fee payment structure set forth in section 627.736(5)(a)2.f., Florida Statutes (2008),1 GEICO

Lewis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

121 So. 3d 1136, 2013 WL 4821553, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14451

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 11, 2013 | Docket: 60234335

Cited 2 times | Published

invalid and contrary to the PIP provisions of section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2009). Although the legislature

State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Buitrago

100 So. 3d 85, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10547, 2012 WL 2471601

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 29, 2012 | Docket: 60226083

Cited 2 times | Published

(holding the mandatory arbitration provision of section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1995), for PIP claims

MRI Associates of St. Pete, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

755 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129696, 2010 WL 5184064

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2010 | Docket: 2340917

Cited 2 times | Published

statutory PIP fee schedule described in Florida Statute 627.736(5)(a)(2)a-f (2007-2008); Count II: a class

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Gaitan

41 So. 3d 268, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7616, 2010 WL 2179673

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 2010 | Docket: 343440

Cited 2 times | Published

the right to have the insured examined under section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (2009). This statute allows

Bosem v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Co.

35 So. 3d 944, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5258, 2010 WL 1565553

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2010 | Docket: 1645740

Cited 2 times | Published

claim do not vitiate coverage on the other. Section 627.736(4)(g), Florida Statutes (2006), states in pertinent

All Family Clinic of Daytona Beach Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.

685 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21068, 2010 WL 569881

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 2010 | Docket: 2435286

Cited 2 times | Published

services under the 2008 amendment to Florida Statute § 627.736. The parties have provided a joint statement of

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Comprehensive Health Center, LLC

26 So. 3d 49, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20375, 2009 WL 5125118

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 2009 | Docket: 1406110

Cited 2 times | Published

physician's report, whether used to support a section 627.736(4)(b) denial of a claim that a bill or claim

Progressive Auto Pro v. One Stop Medical

985 So. 2d 10, 2008 WL 1733287

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 2008 | Docket: 1254405

Cited 2 times | Published

certified questions involve the application of section 627.736(5)(b)5, Florida Statutes (2003), which provides

PROGRESSIVE EXP. INS. CO., INC. v. Menendez

979 So. 2d 324, 2008 WL 723848

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2008 | Docket: 1408057

Cited 2 times | Published

to pay the claim pursuant to paragraph (4)(b). § 627.736(11)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added). The

Southern Group Indem. v. Humanitary Health

975 So. 2d 1247, 2008 WL 649577

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2008 | Docket: 1422279

Cited 2 times | Published

this case is the insured's medical provider. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2003), provides personal

Peachtree Cas. Ins. v. Prof. Massage Servs.

923 So. 2d 548, 2006 WL 536612

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2006 | Docket: 1496607

Cited 2 times | Published

from the dates of the services as required by section 627.736(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1998).[1] In response

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hartzog

917 So. 2d 363, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20371, 2005 WL 3555702

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 2005 | Docket: 1509646

Cited 2 times | Published

obtain no-fault benefits for that vehicle. See § 627.736(4)(d)(4)(a), Fla. Stat. Likewise, Hartzog was

Marlin Diagnostics v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO.

897 So. 2d 469, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19134, 2004 WL 2889744

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 2004 | Docket: 1735322

Cited 2 times | Published

respect to the bodily injury sustained.... Section 627.736(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). Additionally

Star Cas. v. USA Diagnostics, Inc.

855 So. 2d 251, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14802, 2003 WL 22239659

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 1, 2003 | Docket: 1505940

Cited 2 times | Published

HIS/HER MEDICAL PROVIDER, DO SECTION 627.736(5)(a) AND/OR SECTION 627.736(5)(d), FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRE

Ortega v. United Auto. Ins. Co.

847 So. 2d 994, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4061, 2003 WL 1524663

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2003 | Docket: 1686808

Cited 2 times | Published

United Auto contended that, by virtue of Section 627.736(5)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), Ortega

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. West Gables Open MRI Services, Inc.

846 So. 2d 538, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 2003 | Docket: 1301457

Cited 2 times | Published

the Act enacted official Florida statutory section 627.736(5)(b)(5) establishing a revised MRI fee schedule

NORMAN EX REL. ESTATE OF CLEFF v. Farrow

832 So. 2d 158, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2403

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 2002 | Docket: 1335644

Cited 2 times | Published

argument by reference to the PIP set-off statute, section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides

Giles v. Luckie

816 So. 2d 248, 2002 WL 992242

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 16, 2002 | Docket: 1567034

Cited 2 times | Published

are not payable for noneconomic damages. See § 627.736, Fla. Stat. Although this interpretation brings

Med. Manag. Group of Orlado, Inc. v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Company

811 So. 2d 705, 2002 WL 191501

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2002 | Docket: 1724486

Cited 2 times | Published

entitled to be compensated for PIP benefits. Section 627.736(1)(a) provides that the insurer must pay 80%

Gurney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

795 So. 2d 1118, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13887, 2001 WL 1174849

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 5, 2001 | Docket: 1253179

Cited 2 times | Published

personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in relevant

Palmer v. Fortune Ins. Co.

776 So. 2d 1019, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 350, 2001 WL 50899

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 2001 | Docket: 422039

Cited 2 times | Published

provide PIP coverage to Henne. See generally § 627.736(4)(d)3., Fla.Stat. (1999) (insurer of motor vehicle

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLA. v. Steck

778 So. 2d 374, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 269, 2001 WL 37683

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 2001 | Docket: 1290257

Cited 2 times | Published

No-fault Automobile Insurance PIP policy. See § 627.736(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). When the no-fault laws

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Viles

726 So. 2d 320, 1998 WL 877487

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 1999 | Docket: 1307300

Cited 2 times | Published

We affirm based upon our conclusion that Section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), requires an

Cimino v. US SEC. Ins. Co.

715 So. 2d 1092, 1998 WL 476218

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 1998 | Docket: 1366307

Cited 2 times | Published

attorney present with a video camera during a section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes, physical examination

STATE FARM AUTO. INS. v. Klinglesmith

717 So. 2d 569, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9874, 1998 WL 453875

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 1998 | Docket: 1277429

Cited 2 times | Published

injury protection ("PIP") benefits pursuant to section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes, and $1,331.04 for medpay

Trott v. Finlayson

690 So. 2d 718, 1997 WL 149242

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 2, 1997 | Docket: 436983

Cited 2 times | Published

ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle." § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). Finlayson's alleged desire

GOVT. EMP. INS. CO. v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

616 So. 2d 1186, 1993 WL 120358

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1993 | Docket: 1726483

Cited 2 times | Published

protection coverage as required by § 324.029(7) and § 627.736. (2) Each rental or lease agreement between the

Donovan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

560 So. 2d 330, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2831, 1990 WL 49864

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 1990 | Docket: 64650137

Cited 2 times | Published

at the end of appellant’s case stating that section 627.-736(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), requires

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Garrett

550 So. 2d 22, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1789, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4282, 1989 WL 84312

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 1989 | Docket: 1370385

Cited 2 times | Published

benefits violated section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). Section 627.736(7)(a) provides that

Brady v. State

518 So. 2d 1305, 1987 WL 1335

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 1987 | Docket: 1778583

Cited 2 times | Published

personal injury protection benefits required by Section 627.736 Florida Statutes, in violation of 817.234(8)

Quanstrom v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co.

504 So. 2d 1295, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 629

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 26, 1987 | Docket: 453507

Cited 2 times | Published

injury protection (PIP) insurance is barred by section 627.736(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), from recovering

Santiagoherrera v. Stout

470 So. 2d 718

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1985 | Docket: 1676661

Cited 2 times | Published

where security has been provided. Reading section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), one discovers

Velez v. Criterion Ins. Co.

461 So. 2d 1348, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 491, 1984 Fla. LEXIS 3746

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 1984 | Docket: 464471

Cited 2 times | Published

This cause involves the interpretation of section 627.736(4)(d)1, Florida Statutes (1981), and a determination

Fortune Ins. Co. v. Oehme

453 So. 2d 920, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1757, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14595

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 1984 | Docket: 1162809

Cited 2 times | Published

[1] § 627.730-627.741, Fla. Stat. (1981). [2] § 627.736(4)(d)4.a., Fla. Stat. (1981). [3] Malen v. American

Rodriguez v. Travelers Ins. Co.

367 So. 2d 687, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14462

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1979 | Docket: 2537627

Cited 2 times | Published

distribution to which the company is entitled under § 627.736(8), Fla. Stat. (1975). See also Catches v. Government

Cavalier Ins. Corp. v. Myles

347 So. 2d 1060, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16242

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 1977 | Docket: 1687359

Cited 2 times | Published

that therefore PIP benefits are not payable. Section 627.736(4)(d)(1), Florida Statutes (1975), provides

Moylan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

343 So. 2d 56

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 1977 | Docket: 1304300

Cited 2 times | Published

policy with limits of $5,000.00 and under Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1975) these PIP benefits

Fine v. Travelers Insurance Company

342 So. 2d 848, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15326

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 1977 | Docket: 2557978

Cited 2 times | Published

broaden insurance coverage and that pursuant to Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1975), workmen's compensation

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Butler

340 So. 2d 1185, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 16116

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 1976 | Docket: 1299826

Cited 2 times | Published

occupant of a motor vehicle" within the meaning of § 627.736(4)(d), which provides in relevant part: "(d) The

Criterion Insurance Company v. Gutierrez

319 So. 2d 70, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15260

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 1975 | Docket: 444319

Cited 2 times | Published

insured and the insurer arising under the Act, § 627.736(8), Fla. Stat., F.S.A., in conjunction with §

American Fire and Casualty Company v. Oller

313 So. 2d 67

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 23, 1975 | Docket: 1511091

Cited 2 times | Published

right to any reimbursement or indemnity under § 627.736(3), F.S., where appellant had paid maximum personal

Benton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

295 So. 2d 344, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7092

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 1974 | Docket: 64539348

Cited 2 times | Published

of dismissal reciting: “In construing Florida Statute 627.-736(b) and the coverage thereunder provided

Gateway Insurance Company v. Lymus

295 So. 2d 326

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1974 | Docket: 1761926

Cited 2 times | Published

PIP benefits under the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 627.736(1), F.S.A. In so doing, the court determined that

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Guillet

294 So. 2d 1

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1974 | Docket: 1736376

Cited 2 times | Published

reimbursement of its prior PIP payments under Fla. Stat. § 627.736(3)(a), F.S.A. The insurer contended that equitable

Ocean Harbor Cas. Ins. v. MSPA Claims, 1

261 So. 3d 637

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2018 | Docket: 64700806

Cited 1 times | Published

series of mini-trials under Florida no-fault law. § 627.736, etseq., Fla. Stat. For this reason, we reverse

Ocean Harbor Cas. Ins. v. MSPA Claims, 1

261 So. 3d 637

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2018 | Docket: 64700807

Cited 1 times | Published

series of mini-trials under Florida no-fault law. § 627.736, etseq., Fla. Stat. For this reason, we reverse

Dimitri v. Commercial Center of Miami Master Assoc.

253 So. 3d 715

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 8, 2018 | Docket: 7619141

Cited 1 times | Published

dispositive issue before this Court is whether section 627.736(11), Florida Statutes (2001), can be applied

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. M R I ASSOCIATES OF TAMPA, INC. D/ B/ A PARK PLACE M R I

252 So. 3d 773

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2018 | Docket: 6775142

Cited 1 times | Published

schedule of maximum charges described in section 627.736(5)(a)(1)–(5), Florida Statutes (2013). Because

Progressive v. Florida Hospital

236 So. 3d 1183

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2018 | Docket: 6307535

Cited 1 times | Published

statutory reimbursement limitations provided in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2014). The respondent

A & M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. Geico General Insurance Co.

321 F.R.D. 688, 2017 WL 2464674

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 2017 | Docket: 66059708

Cited 1 times | Published

the fee schedule permit*693ted by Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(a) and GEI-CO’a endorsement, FLPIP (01-13)

Carpenter v. Chavez

200 So. 3d 212, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13132, 2016 WL 4536451

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 31, 2016 | Docket: 4418145

Cited 1 times | Published

reverse the final judgment. 1 Section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (2014), governs an insured’s

Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.

201 So. 3d 169, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10691

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2016 | Docket: 4110324

Cited 1 times | Published

based upon the fee schedules established in section 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2008), at the

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. B&A Diagnostic, Inc.

145 F. Supp. 3d 1154, 2015 WL 7272738

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 2015 | Docket: 64305406

Cited 1 times | Published

supervised, ordered or prescribed.” Fla. Stat. § 627.736(1)(a). “An insurer is not required to pay a claim

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Comprehensive Health Center

173 So. 3d 1061, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11689, 2015 WL 4634556

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 2015 | Docket: 2681892

Cited 1 times | Published

issue. Id. This Court noted that section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (2009), states that

Bay Area Injury Rehab Specialists Holdings, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association

173 So. 3d 1004, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8772, 2015 WL 3618428

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2015 | Docket: 2663360

Cited 1 times | Published

Florida for unpaid PIP benefits. See § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2013); Steven E. Goodwiller

McCarty v. Myers

125 So. 3d 333, 2013 WL 5744435, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16980

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 2013 | Docket: 60235845

Cited 1 times | Published

Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, specifically section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (2012), relating to personal

SOCC, P.L. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

95 So. 3d 903, 2012 WL 2864384, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11388

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2012 | Docket: 60311336

Cited 1 times | Published

for those services rendered on the same day. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes,2 controls the outcome of

Geico General Insurance v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc.

90 So. 3d 321, 2012 WL 1414694, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6387

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2012 | Docket: 60309352

Cited 1 times | Published

rates under the Medicare Part B fee schedules, section 627.736(5)(a)2.f., Florida Statutes (2008). In this

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. AFO Imaging, Inc.

71 So. 3d 134, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10507, 2011 WL 2622311

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 2011 | Docket: 2359851

Cited 1 times | Published

parties' respective rights and obligations under section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2008), in regard to PIP

Nodal v. Infinity Auto Insurance Co.

50 So. 3d 721, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19398, 2010 WL 5129312

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 2010 | Docket: 2398202

Cited 1 times | Published

fraud. The original complaint referred to section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2006) (the PIP statute)

GEICO Indemnity Co. v. Physicians Group, LLC

47 So. 3d 354, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16663, 2010 WL 4321569

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 3, 2010 | Docket: 1927203

Cited 1 times | Published

personal injury protection (PIP) statute, section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2008), allowed GEICO to

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Perdomo

44 So. 3d 1189, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14018, 2010 WL 3655786

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 2010 | Docket: 307235

Cited 1 times | Published

2009), all of which hold that, pursuant to section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), a "valid report"

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Peter F. Merkle, M.D., P.A.

32 So. 3d 159, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3330, 2010 WL 934140

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2010 | Docket: 2545280

Cited 1 times | Published

examine the insured. The court concluded that section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes, required Dr. Glatzer

United Automobile Insurance Company v. Coastal Wellness Center, Inc.

28 So. 3d 246, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2538, 2010 WL 711795

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 2010 | Docket: 2568512

Cited 1 times | Published

21 So.3d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (construing section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), as not imposing

Florida Medical & Injury Center, Inc. v. Progressive Express Insurance Co.

29 So. 3d 329, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 420, 2010 WL 198459

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 22, 2010 | Docket: 1643596

Cited 1 times | Published

Florida's personal injury protection statute. Section 627.736(5)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2005), provides:

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Pressley

28 So. 3d 105, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 125, 2010 WL 90407

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 12, 2010 | Docket: 1167225

Cited 1 times | Published

filed a complaint against State Farm under section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2003), for allegedly overdue

Flaxman v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

993 So. 2d 597, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16782, 2008 WL 4722976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 2008 | Docket: 1516287

Cited 1 times | Published

basic PIP benefits at $8,000, in violation of section 627.736, Florida Statutes, which mandates $10,000 of

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Custer Medical Center

990 So. 2d 633, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13844, 2008 WL 4146365

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2008 | Docket: 1687601

Cited 1 times | Published

section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2001). Section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (2001), provides: (a)

Geico General Insurance Company v. Florida Emergency Physicians

972 So. 2d 1013, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 61, 2008 WL 45532

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 2008 | Docket: 2399858

Cited 1 times | Published

2007 WL 1542019 (Fla. 3d DCA May 30, 2007) ("Section 627.736 does not provide for nor address the insured's

GEICO General Ins. Co. v. Berner

971 So. 2d 929, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 20112, 2007 WL 4409786

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 19, 2007 | Docket: 1731943

Cited 1 times | Published

injury protection coverage is a modest $10,000. § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Because substantial penalties

Professional Med. Group v. United Auto.

967 So. 2d 243, 2007 WL 2428486

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 29, 2007 | Docket: 1408400

Cited 1 times | Published

Personal Injury Protection (PIP) log, pursuant to section 627.736(6)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), Professional

Shivers v. Enterprise Leasing Co.

950 So. 2d 494, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2767, 2007 WL 601489

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2007 | Docket: 64849607

Cited 1 times | Published

required to provide PIP coverage to Shivers under section 627.736, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, we have considered

Sterling v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

936 So. 2d 43, 2006 WL 2033880

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 2006 | Docket: 1651098

Cited 1 times | Published

other persons struck by such motor vehicle." § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Thus, in at least one circumstance

Clearview Imaging v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

932 So. 2d 423, 2006 WL 1041821

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2006 | Docket: 1684804

Cited 1 times | Published

personal injury protection benefits under section 627.736(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes (2002), which requires

Wallace v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

920 So. 2d 50, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19957, 2005 WL 3439936

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 2005 | Docket: 64842129

Cited 1 times | Published

the jury, to do the setoff, as required by section 627.736(8), Florida Statutes (2002). This Court initially

Padilla v. LIBERTY MUT.

934 So. 2d 511, 2005 WL 1965863

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 2005 | Docket: 2522970

Cited 1 times | Published

statute). This Court thus held, in part, that (a) section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes, does not provide for

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Holy Cross Hosp., Inc.

895 So. 2d 1241, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2534, 2005 WL 475517

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2005 | Docket: 1674389

Cited 1 times | Published

required to comply with the provisions of section 627.736(10), Fla. Stat. in order to take preferred

Reg. Mri of Orlando v. Nationwide Mut. Fire

884 So. 2d 1102, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15574, 2004 WL 2363589

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 2004 | Docket: 1683200

Cited 1 times | Published

medical provider render a medical service under Section 627.736(5)(a), when the medical service was provided

Wendell v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO.

881 So. 2d 1178, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12614, 2004 WL 1905899

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 27, 2004 | Docket: 1465590

Cited 1 times | Published

the jury, to do the setoff, as required by section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (2002). We agree. Initially

Osler v. Collins

870 So. 2d 65, 2003 WL 22681144

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 2003 | Docket: 1698081

Cited 1 times | Published

Florida's personal injury protection statute. See § 627.736(3), Fla. Stat. (1971) (providing a PIP insurer

Cannarella v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

809 So. 2d 73, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1438, 2002 WL 215800

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2002 | Docket: 64813020

Cited 1 times | Published

to be calculated from the thirty-first day. Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that

United Automobile Insurance v. Stat Technologies, Inc.

787 So. 2d 920, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 6674, 2001 WL 514353

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 16, 2001 | Docket: 64806229

Cited 1 times | Published

summary judgment on liability was denied. Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that

Consortium for Diagnostics, Inc. v. Cigna Ins. Co.

781 So. 2d 1128, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1790, 2001 WL 167249

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 2001 | Docket: 1293858

Cited 1 times | Published

pending completion of arbitration mandated by section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1995). Based upon the

Logue v. Clarendon National Insurance

777 So. 2d 1122, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 824, 2001 WL 76955

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2001 | Docket: 64803622

Cited 1 times | Published

PART. STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . Section 627.736(8), Florida Statutes, makes section 627.428

Allstate Indem. Co. v. Derius

773 So. 2d 1190, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15449, 2000 WL 1744890

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 2000 | Docket: 1687649

Cited 1 times | Published

reduce bills for medical treatment; pursuant to Section 627.736(1)(a), first obtain a report from a physician

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chaple

774 So. 2d 742, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14919, 2000 WL 1700914

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2000 | Docket: 2553127

Cited 1 times | Published

Chaple sued Allstate alleging a violation of section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), because Allstate

Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. v. Castellano

764 So. 2d 889, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10122, 2000 WL 1140438

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 2000 | Docket: 64799501

Cited 1 times | Published

had available at the time of judgment. Under section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1997),1 an injured party

Robin Tucker, As Assignee of Palm Beach Nightclub Enterprises, Inc. v. John Galt Insurance Agency

743 So. 2d 108, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12368, 1999 WL 741119

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 1999 | Docket: 64791657

Cited 1 times | Published

covered loss under the applicable statute. See § 627.736(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). Like the workers’ compensation

Stewart v. Allstate Ins. Co.

618 So. 2d 771, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5347, 1993 WL 153762

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 1993 | Docket: 1376236

Cited 1 times | Published

CREATION OF THE NO FAULT STATUTE, SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 627.736(1)(b), FLORIDA STATUTES? We answer the question

Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co.

560 So. 2d 393, 1990 WL 54976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 1990 | Docket: 1739523

Cited 1 times | Published

Reparations Act (Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law), section 627.736(4)(d)(4), Florida Statutes (1987). Appellant

INTERNATIONAL BANKERS INS. CO. v. Arnone

528 So. 2d 917, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1988, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2247, 1988 WL 53026

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 1988 | Docket: 1366652

Cited 1 times | Published

"otherwise due" under the policy is $5,000.00. Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1975). The maximum liability

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Value Rent-A-Car

463 So. 2d 320, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 117, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11810

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1985 | Docket: 448966

Cited 1 times | Published

of, property of others in any one accident. Section 627.736(1) requires every owner or registrant of a

Porr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

452 So. 2d 93

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 1984 | Docket: 474427

Cited 1 times | Published

concerns appellant's claim of entitlement under Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, to compensation by reason

AMERICAN RISK ASSUR. CO. v. Benrube

407 So. 2d 993

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 1981 | Docket: 467276

Cited 1 times | Published

appellee's medical bills, and pursuant to Section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1971) (repealed effective

Marion v. Cissell

376 So. 2d 871

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 1979 | Docket: 1411602

Cited 1 times | Published

payable. Nevertheless, the court, relying on Section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1976), instructed the

Industrial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jones

363 So. 2d 1168, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16940

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 1978 | Docket: 461057

Cited 1 times | Published

policy exclusion was specifically authorized by Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1977), which provides: "(2)

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kilbreath

362 So. 2d 474, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16366

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 20, 1978 | Docket: 1363617

Cited 1 times | Published

or vehicles insured or policies involved. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1971) provides for a limitation

MANCHESTER INS. & INDEM. v. Rodriguez

331 So. 2d 372

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1976 | Docket: 1287808

Cited 1 times | Published

determining equitable distribution pursuant to § 627.736(3)(b), Fla. Stat.: "(1) The extent, if any, to

Brandal v. ST. FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO.

327 So. 2d 867

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 1976 | Docket: 1363989

Cited 1 times | Published

court erred in ruling that the provisions of Section 627.736(4)(d), Florida Automobile Reparations Reform

CENTRAL NATL. INS. CO. v. Fernandez

307 So. 2d 906

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 28, 1975 | Docket: 1699729

Cited 1 times | Published

reimbursement from its insured under Fla. Stat. § 627.736(3)(a) and, (2) even if a lawsuit was filed, as

HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY v. Diaz

296 So. 2d 504

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 1974 | Docket: 1619815

Cited 1 times | Published

settled for $65,000. Diaz moved the court, under § 627.736(3)(b) Fla. Stat., F.S.A., for a determination

Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

294 So. 2d 2, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7163

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1974 | Docket: 1421165

Cited 1 times | Published

distribution which should be given under Fla. Stat. § 627.736(3)(b), F.S.A. Therefore, for the reasons stated

Buchman v. McDonald

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 2025 | Docket: 71275651

Published

protection benefits are paid or payable." § 627.736(3), Fla. Stat. (2024) (emphasis added); see also

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Samantha Small and DSE Health Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 2025 | Docket: 70690162

Published

Policy State Farm insured Small’s vehicle. Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (2014), as part of the

Infinity Auto Insurance Company v. Miami Open MRI, LLC, A/A/O Rolando Amador

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 2025 | Docket: 70454063

Published

precedent to receiving benefits under section 627.736(6)(g), Florida Statutes (2015),[] and

Ray Medical Center, Inc., A/A/O Mairo De Leon v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2025 | Docket: 69793056

Published

been tolled for 30 business days pursuant to section 627.736(10)(e), Florida Statutes.2 Because such tolling

Allstate Indemnity Company v. Gady Abramson, D.C., P.A., Etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 2024 | Docket: 69435182

Published

payment in this manner is authorized under section 627.736(5)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2019), and therefore

United Automobile Insurance Company v. Coral Gables Chiropractic PLLC, A/A/O Johander Santa C. Hernandez

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 30, 2024 | Docket: 69324291

Published

the “claim,” as contemplated in section 627.736(10)(d) of the Florida Statutes (2012), thereby

Progressive Specialty Insurance Company v. Florida Hospital Ocala, Inc. D/B/A Adventhealth Ocala A/A/O Sandra Thomas

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2024 | Docket: 69257779

Published

less Progressive’s payment of $2,377.72. See § 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat. (2019) (“The insurer may

First Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc. v. Belleview Imaging Center, LLC a/a/o Yvonne Nales

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 19, 2024 | Docket: 68168309

Published

of the billed amount, as is consistent with section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017). Appellee sued

Auto Club Insurance Company of Florida v. Express Care of Belleview, LLC A/A/O Eileen Fonti

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2024 | Docket: 68896432

Published

maximum reimbursement rate. Consistent with section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), Auto Club reimbursed

Progressive American Insurance Company v. Express Care of Belleview, LLC, Wright

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 2024 | Docket: 68561958

Published

issue in this case is whether, pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)5., Florida Statutes (2015), Progressive

Central Florida Medical & Chiropractic Center, Inc. d/b/a Sterling Medical Group a/a/o Xavier Blanford v. Mendota Insurance Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 2024 | Docket: 68561964

Published

legal position, Sterling relies primarily on section 627.736(5)(a)1.f., Florida Statutes (2019). That statute

Allstate Insurance Company v. Revival Chiropractic, LLC

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2024 | Docket: 68470937

Published

benefits are set forth in section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2017). Section 627.736(1)(a) provides generally

Fernando Cantens and Ana Marie Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2024 | Docket: 68249793

Published

Law, section 627.736(10), Florida Statutes. Menendez initially found that because section 627.736(10)

United Automobile Insurance Company v. Iso-Diagnostics Testing, Inc. a/a/o Suryma Pineiro Morales

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 10, 2024 | Docket: 68149061

Published

Injured Persons,” the policy noted: “Pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes, as amended, we will

REBECCA HUGHES v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2023 | Docket: 67718527

Published

statute. Pursuant to the 2001 version of section 627.736, an insured must now take additional

REBECCA HUGHES v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2023 | Docket: 67718527

Published

statute. Pursuant to the 2001 version of section 627.736, an insured must now take additional

MERCURY IDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA vs CENTRAL FLORIDA MEDICAL & CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC. D/B/A STERLING MEDICAL GROUP A/A/O STHEFANY SANTIAGO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 2023 | Docket: 68034059

Published

did not provide the information required by section 627.736(10), Florida Statutes (2019). Specifically

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS v. MD NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. d/b/a MD NOW PATIENT: SHELLEY HOLMSTOCK

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 2023 | Docket: 67657805

Published

Additionally, they averred that in accord with section 627.736(5)(a)(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2020), they

MOREL FAUSTIN v. JEAN CLAUDE REMY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 2023 | Docket: 66818428

Published

any and all limitations . . . authorized by section 627.736 . . . including . . . all fee schedules.’

MERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. PAN AM DIAGNOSTIC OF ORLANDO, a/a/o JOCELINE PIERRILUS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 2023 | Docket: 67482044

Published

letter to Mercury satisfied the requirements of section 627.736(10)(b)3., Florida Statutes (2017), which provides

INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY v. MIAMI OPEN MRI, LLC a/a/o ROLANDO AMADOR

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 2023 | Docket: 67482060

Published

a reasonable basis is subject to s. 626.9541. § 627.736(6)(g), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added). 2

JUSTIN A. LAZAROFF vs LARRY MEEK

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2023 | Docket: 68034577

Published

personal injury protection matters, see, e.g., section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (2023), and are included

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY v. IN HOUSE DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 2023 | Docket: 67270673

Published

proper reimbursement rate, in accordance with section 627.736(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), for imaging

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, LLC, A/A/O ANGELA COOPER v. STAR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2023 | Docket: 66833831

Published

asserting exhaustion of benefits pursuant to section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes.1 CHC filed a reply arguing

MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Covington Specialty Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 22, 2023 | Docket: 66893456

Published

pay the claim . . . . FLA. STAT. § 627.736(10)(a). The statute also guarantees the insurer

MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Covington Specialty Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 22, 2023 | Docket: 66836591

Published

pay the claim . . . . FLA. STAT. § 627.736(10)(a). The statute also guarantees the insurer

BAKER FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, LLC A/A/O HAHN DINH vs LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 2023 | Docket: 68034820

Published

overdue under the terms of the PIP policy and section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), when it had

THE PERSONAL INJURY CLINIC, INC., A/A/O LOANYS MANZANO v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2022 | Docket: 66635722

Published

election to use the fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2022). See Allstate

VELO CHIRO FIZIK, INC., A/A/O LEOSMEL RODRIGUEZ v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2022 | Docket: 66635717

Published

permissive Medicare fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a) 2. to limit reimbursements.”).

HOCHMAN FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, INC., A/A/O REBECCA BOSSLEY v. ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2022 | Docket: 66635737

Published

the permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2. of the Florida Statutes. See Allstate

VELO CHIRO FIZIK, INC., A/A/O ALFONSO QUIROGA v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2022 | Docket: 66635718

Published

the permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2. of the Florida Statutes. See Allstate

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CHIRONEX ENTERPRISES, INC. a/a/o EMILY ECHEGARAY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2022 | Docket: 66575251

Published

provider is entitled to reimbursement under section 627.736 focuses on whether the service itself is reimbursable

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. LAUDERHILL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC a/a/o ROBERT WHITE

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2022 | Docket: 65742497

Published

workers’ compensation schedule pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2019). The insurer

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. LAUDERHILL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC a/a/o AMBER GRIFFIN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2022 | Docket: 65742498

Published

muscle toning and lymph drainage.” language of section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (2019), mandates payment

BRUCE CHIROPRACTIC & COMPREHENSIVE CARE, PLLC, A/A/O CATHARINE KINSTLER v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2022 | Docket: 65635490

Published

the permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2009).” Id. at

FAMILY HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., A/A/O JORGE DURAN v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2022 | Docket: 65635487

Published

the permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2009).” Id. at

THE PERSONAL INJURY CLINIC, INC., A/A/O MIGUEL NARDO v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 19, 2022 | Docket: 65588614

Published

the permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2009).” Id. at

THE PERSONAL INJURY CLINIC, INC., A/A/O MIGUEL NARDO v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 19, 2022 | Docket: 65588614

Published

the permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2009).” Id. at

HOCHMAN FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, INC., A/A/O JOHN ENGELHART v. ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2022 | Docket: 65404743

Published

permissive Medicare fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a) 2. to limit reimbursements.”).

THE PERSONAL INJURY CLINIC, INC., A/A/O TATIANA RODRIGUEZ v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2022 | Docket: 65404729

Published

the permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2012). See Allstate

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc. v. G & O REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., A/A/O MIREDY DIEGUEZ MORENO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 2022 | Docket: 65346495

Published

the outstanding medical bills as required by section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2011). 1 United Auto

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PAN AM DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC. d/b/a PAN AM DIAGNOSTIC OF ORLANDO a/a/o CLAUDINE JEAN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 2022 | Docket: 64898837

Published

that statutory interest payable pursuant to section 627.736(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2019), is not an insurance

ROBERT J. HANOPOLE, D.C., P.A. a/a/o NATALIA BUSTAMANTE v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2022 | Docket: 64881547

Published

the … [c]omplaint. Florida Statute § 627.736 [requiring automobile insurance policies

VELO CHIRO FIZIK, INC., A/A/O DAILY LUGO v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2022 | Docket: 64881514

Published

the permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2009).2 See Allstate

THE PERSONAL INJURY CLINIC A/A/O CARIDAD GARCIA v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2022 | Docket: 64881522

Published

the permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)–(f), Florida Statutes, and, in each

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. KEITH H. BUCHALTER, D.C d/b/a SOUTH BROWARD CHIROPRACTIC CENTER a/a/o MARIA GARCIA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2022 | Docket: 64865319

Published

A 1st Choice, the Third District concluded section 627.736(4)(b) did not provide a private right of action

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY vs CHRISTOS MIKROGIANNAKIS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 2022 | Docket: 61574136

Published

damages in favor of Christos Mikrogiannakis. Section 627.736(5)(c), Florida Statutes (2014), establishes

STAR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY, INC., A/A/O ANA MARIA CORREA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 2022 | Docket: 63654632

Published

to the underlying accident for purposes of section 627.736, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Star Casualty

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CENTRAL THERAPY CENTER, INC., A/A/O VANESSA LOPEZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 2022 | Docket: 63572754

Published

reasonable, related, and medically necessary. § 627.736(1)(a) (requiring that all automobile insurance

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY vs EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, INC., D/B/A EMERGENCY RESOURCES GROUP, A/A/O MICHELLE ARCHER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2022 | Docket: 60123690

Published

submitted a bill for those services pursuant to section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2015). The record

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY vs EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, INC., D/B/A EMERGENCY RESOURCES GROUP, AS ASSIGNEE OF EMMA SANDERS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2022 | Docket: 61574123

Published

submitted a bill for those services pursuant to section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2015). The record

GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY, INC., A/A/O ALBERTO GALVEZ v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 2022 | Docket: 63285664

Published

GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 627.736(10)(a), Fla. Stat. (“As a condition precedent

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HEALTH CARE FAMILY REHABILITATION CENTER CORP., A/A/O ANTHONY ROMAN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 2022 | Docket: 63266650

Published

support such a determination, as required by section 627.736(8), Florida Statutes (2021). 1 1 That

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. COLUMNA INC./THOMAS ROUSH, M.D., A/A/O ANDREA MEJIA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 23, 2022 | Docket: 63180083

Published

instance, to adjudicate the parties’ 1 See § 627.736(5)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2018). 2 Rivera v. State

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. SPORTS, SPINE, OCCUPATIONAL, REHABILITATION, INC. a/a/o JUNE RICHARDS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2022 | Docket: 63162696

Published

reimbursement limitation in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b.” Id. at 221. After Progressive Select

AMERICAN MOBILE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., A/A/O TANIA JIMENEZ v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2022 | Docket: 63008236

Published

did not reflect a “reasonable amount” under section 627.736(5)(a), Florida Statutes. 1 State Farm’s expert

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, D/B/A MILLENNIUM OPEN MRI, A/A/O SORAYA CASTANEDA ARANGO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 12, 2022 | Docket: 62217856

Published

services were unreasonable and that, pursuant to section 627.736(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes, 3 United Auto

MRI Associates of Tampa, Inc., etc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 2021 | Docket: 61604953

Published

charges under the relevant provisions of section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (2013). This is

GR REHAB CENTER, INC. v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2021 | Docket: 61601894

Published

GR’s lawsuit was filed in contravention of Section 627.736(10)(d) of the Florida Statutes, which prohibits

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY v. DR. RAHAT FADERANI, DO, MPH, PA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 2021 | Docket: 60858350

Published

were not permitted under a prior version of section 627.736(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. The statute was

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY v. DR. RAHAT FADERANI, DO, MPH, PA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 2021 | Docket: 60858350

Published

were not permitted under a prior version of section 627.736(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. The statute was

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ISOT MEDICAL CENTER CORP., A/A/O JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 2021 | Docket: 60858245

Published

1 The Florida No–Fault (“PIP”) Statute, section 627.736, Florida Statutes, (2012 to date), sets forth

PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC. v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 2021 | Docket: 60660138

Published

within the thirty-day timeframe required by section 627.736(4)(b). Due to a miscalculation, Progressive

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY v. HEAD TO TOE POSTURE REHAB, LLC a/a/o ALIX LOUIS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2021 | Docket: 60627050

Published

because a provision within the PIP statute—section 627.736(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2014)—authorizes

CEDA HEALTH OF HIALEAH, LLC, etc. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2021 | Docket: 60627043

Published

charges and its claim was barred pursuant to section 627.736(5)(b)1.c., Florida Statutes (2010). We find

STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. THE IMAGING CENTER OF WEST PALM BEACH, LLC a/a/o JOSE GRACIA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 2021 | Docket: 60385580

Published

that it paid the instant claim pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2012), and its policy

ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. MARCIA C. SASSO, D.C., P.A. a/a/o ERICA BORGES

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2021 | Docket: 60291000

Published

the permissive fee schedules referenced in section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2009), to limit

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. HIALEAH DIAGNOSTICS, INC. A/A/O MARIA VILLEGAS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2021 | Docket: 60290983

Published

entitled to coverage under a Geico policy. Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (2020) provides: “An

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc. v. WEST MEDICAL CENTER HEALTH CARE II, CORP., etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2021 | Docket: 60290971

Published

reasonably related and medically necessary. See § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2020).

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. HALLANDALE BEACH ORTHOPEDICS, INC. A/A/O FRITZNIE JARBATH

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 18, 2021 | Docket: 60199093

Published

schedule, see § 627.736(5)(a)1.a.–f., by electing to do so in its policy, see § 627.736(5)(a) 5.” Geico

NORTH BROWARD CHIROPRACTIC AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC. a/a/o CRISTINA CORRIDORI v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 2021 | Docket: 60123703

Published

the reimbursement limitation in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b. Accordingly, we approve Progressive

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PROGRESSIVE HEALTH SERVICES, A/A/O JEAN DEVAUGHN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 4, 2021 | Docket: 60108384

Published

of Progressive Health’s charges pursuant to section 627.736(5) of the Florida Statutes. 1 On June

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CENTRAL THERAPY CENTER, INC., A/A/O PEDRO COSTA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 2021 | Docket: 60088899

Published

experience and review of the statutory factors in section 627.736(5)(a) was legally sufficient. 4 Id., at *3

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NB SPORTS MASSAGE AND REHAB CORP. A/A/O DAISY DEPAULA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 2021 | Docket: 60088898

Published

reasonable, related, and medically necessary. See § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2020).

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PROGRESSIVE REHABILITATION AND ORTHOPEDIC SERVICES, LLC A/A/O YASEL ALONSO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 2021 | Docket: 60073771

Published

reasonably related and medically necessary. See § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2020).

BARTOW HMA, INC. d/b/a BARTOW REGIONAL CENTER, etc. v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 2021 | Docket: 60057006

Published

factors of both the default method described in section 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2011), and the permissive

MIRACLE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., A/A/O KIRENIA TAMAYO v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 2021 | Docket: 60056672

Published

of receiving each set of bills pursuant to section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2013). Progressive

GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. AVENTURA ORTHOPEDICARE CENTER, P.A. A/A/O ZUNILDA DE LOS SANTOS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 2021 | Docket: 60025612

Published

Insurer’s requests for information pursuant to section 627.736(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2016). We agree and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. BAUM CHIROPRACTIC, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 2021 | Docket: 60025591

Published

Baum Chiropractic’s claims were barred by section 627.736(5)(b)(1)(c), Florida Statutes because it submitted

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY v. MURANSKY CHIROPRACTIC P.A. a/a/o CARLOS DIESTE

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 2021 | Docket: 60009948

Published

paid the billed amounts in full pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes, and “the new/amended

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. JEFFREY L. KATZELL, M.D., P.A. a/a/o SYLVIANE LOUVRIER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 2021 | Docket: 60006552

Published

phrase “participating physician” from section 627.736(5)(a)2. and replaced it with “applicable

ASSOCIATES IN FAMILY PRACTICE OF BROWARD, LLC a/a/o YVETTE BROWN v. ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 2021 | Docket: 60006550

Published

concluding, the court explained: Section 627.736(5)(d), Florida Statutes, provides that

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CHIROPRACTIC CLINICS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, PL, A/A/O MICHAEL AKINS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 2021 | Docket: 59988810

Published

services having been rendered, as required by section 627.736(5)(c), Florida Statutes. CCSF denied the affirmative

HIGH DEFINITION MOBILE MRI, INC. a/a/o LOUIMA SUSETTE v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 2021 | Docket: 59954656

Published

Stat. (2012) (emphasis added). Finally, section 627.736(5)(a)5., Florida Statutes (2013), states that

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STAND UP MRI OF BOCA RATON, P.A. A/A/O MIKE RAMAZIO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2021 | Docket: 59936578

Published

Stand Up MRI’s motion. The court ruled that section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2013), creates a

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STAND UP MRI OF TALLAHASSEE, P.A. A/A/O SHERI ANDREWS, NEILL LOPEZ, MIRIAM ALBERONI-FARFAN & MARSHAY PENDER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2021 | Docket: 59936577

Published

statute and the insurance policy by finding that section 627.736(5)(a)2. sets an absolute floor for PIP reimbursements

SUNRISE CHIROPRACTIC AND REHABILITATION CENTER a/a/o BICHENET LOUIS v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2021 | Docket: 59917992

Published

80%, pursuant to the . . . policy . . . and Section 627.736, Florida Statutes.” Insurer did not dispute

PRIORITY MEDICAL CENTERS, LLC, etc. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2021 | Docket: 59860086

Published

subject to Medicare Part B” as it is used in section 627.736(5)(a)2. In a lengthy opinion analyzing the

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. FINLAY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, INC., A/A/O MARIA P. CRUZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2021 | Docket: 59860094

Published

the lower tribunal erred in interpreting section 627.736(1)(a)(5), Florida Statutes. Recognizing the

ADVANCED PHYSICAL THERAPY OF KENDALL, LLC, A/A/O SCHILLER LADOUCEUR v. CAMRAC, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2021 | Docket: 59860099

Published

pursuant to Florida’s PIP law, specifically section 627.736 of the Florida Statutes. 2 In November 2019

FLORIDA PAIN & REHABILITATION OF WEST DADE v. INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2021 | Docket: 59840436

Published

provider is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 627.736(8), Florida Statutes (2018), after it recovered

MARSHALL BRONSTEIN, D.C. a/a/o CLAIRE LIBASCI v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2021 | Docket: 59780391

Published

properly elected the payment limitations of section 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2011), in its PIP

MARSHALL BRONSTEIN, D.C. a/a/o CLAIRE LIBASCI v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2021 | Docket: 59780274

Published

properly elected the payment limitations of section 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2011), in its PIP

MARSHALL BRONSTEIN, D.C. a/a/o CLAIRE LIBASCI v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2021 | Docket: 59781215

Published

properly elected the payment limitations of section 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2011), in its PIP

DAVID RIVERA v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 24, 2021 | Docket: 59678199

Published

demand letter sent to State Farm pursuant to section 627.736(10), Florida Statutes (2014) met the specificity

UPRIGHT OPEN MRI, LLC a/a/o VIRGINIA JURADO v. INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 2020 | Docket: 18465796

Published

fee schedule for PIP benefits outlined in section 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2018), but they

AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. v. Progressive American Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 12, 2019 | Docket: 16188864

Published

protection (PIP) benefits up to $10,000. Fla. Stat. § 627.736(1). But under a 2012 amendment to that law, not

Mspa Claims 1, LLC v. First Acceptance Ins. Co.

380 F. Supp. 3d 1235

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: May 6, 2019 | Docket: 64324441

Published

lacks standing because it did not comply with § 627.736, Florida Statutes' pre-suit notice requirements

A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. Geico General Insurance Company

921 F.3d 1273

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 19, 2019 | Docket: 14966202

Published

protection (PIP) benefits. See Fla. Stat. § 627.736 (1) (mandating that automobile insurers provide

Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Quality Diagnostic Health Care, Inc.

369 F. Supp. 3d 1292

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 2019 | Docket: 64323554

Published

contractor Defendants first argue that Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(a) does not prohibit PIP reimbursement to a

Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Florida Hospital Medical Center, Etc.

260 So. 3d 219

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 2018 | Docket: 8498557

Published

reduced under the reimbursement limitation in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2014). We have

USAA Gen. Indem. Co. v. Fla. Hosp. Med. Ctr.

259 So. 3d 1013

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 2018 | Docket: 64699502

Published

APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736(5)(a)1.b., OR MUST THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION

Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Florida Hospital Medical

249 So. 3d 779

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2018 | Docket: 7481523

Published

statutory reimbursement limitation provided in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2013).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. M R I ASSOCIATES OF TAMPA, INC. D/ B/ A PARK PLACE M R I

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2018 | Docket: 6831815

Published

schedule of maximum charges described in section 627.736(5)(a)(1)–(5), Florida Statutes (2013). Because

USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. WILLIAM J. GOGAN, M.D.

238 So. 3d 937

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2018 | Docket: 6333489

Published

REDUCTION(S) AS CONTAINED IN FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 627.736(5)(a)(1)? We rephrase the certified question

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INS. CO v. CARE WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, a/a/o VIRGINIA BARDON-DIAZ

240 So. 3d 22

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2018 | Docket: 6333494

Published

charges, before reducing the charges under section 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2013), a statutory

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE v. DAVID A. BLUM, M.D., P.A. a/a/o VANESSA MORENO

238 So. 3d 852

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2018 | Docket: 6333497

Published

FEE SCHEDULE PAYMENT LIMITATION FOUND IN § 627.736(5)(A)(1), FLA. STAT. (2013)? We rephrase the

Progressive v. Florida Hospital

236 So. 3d 1182

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2018 | Docket: 6307534

Published

REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736(5)(a)1.b., OR MUST THE REIMBURSEMENT

UR Health Chiropractic Corp. v. Progressive Select Ins. Co.

285 F. Supp. 3d 1345

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 2018 | Docket: 64316549

Published

services, supplies, or care ...." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 627.736(5)(a)(3). UR Health explains, however, that "[t]he

Allstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Open Mri, LLC

253 So. 3d 36

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 2017 | Docket: 6235088

Published

to 80% of the maximum charges described in section 627.736(5)(a)2.f., Florida Statutes (2013). The issue

A & M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

291 F. Supp. 3d 1318

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2017 | Docket: 64317063

Published

maximum charges contained in the Florida Statutes § 627.736(5)(a) 1., (a)2., and (a)3.: ... 6. For all other

Progressive v. Florida Hospital

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 2017 | Docket: 6229046

Published

statutory reimbursement limitations provided in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2014). The respondent

Green v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

225 So. 3d 229, 2017 WL 2131492, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7026

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 17, 2017 | Docket: 60272427

Published

were billed by their providers. Pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2011), an insurer may elect

AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. v. Progressive American Insurance Co.

321 F.R.D. 677, 2017 WL 2123467

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: May 16, 2017 | Docket: 66059707

Published

limits of PIP coverage, calculated pursuant to section 627.736.”17 The resolution of this case, Plaintiffs

Allstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Open Mri, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2017 | Docket: 4820268

Published

following the Legislature’s amendments to section 627.736, Florida Statutes, in 2008. In Orthopedic

Northwest Center for Integrative Medicine & Rehabilitation, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

214 So. 3d 679, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2408, 2017 WL 697775

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2017 | Docket: 60264211

Published

elected to apply the fee schedules pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2009). The court

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc.

210 So. 3d 1224, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 176, 2017 WL 633768, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 341

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2017 | Docket: 4586137

Published

the extent of permissible discovery under section 627.736(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2015), and requires

Progressive American Insurance Co. v. Eduardo J. Garrido D.C. P.A., Etc.

211 So. 3d 1086, 2017 WL 621239, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1993

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2017 | Docket: 4585355

Published

determination made by an authorized physician under section 627.736(l)(a)3. of the Florida Statutes that Godoy

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. First Care Solution, Inc.

232 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 2017 WL 372022, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10906

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 2017 | Docket: 64312514

Published

supervised, ordered or prescribed.” Fla. Stat. § 627.736(l)(a). “An insurer is not required to pay a claim

Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Central Florida, LLP

178 So. 3d 927, 2015 WL 6757328

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 2016 | Docket: 60251629

Published

within the thirty-day window contemplated by section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2011), is entitled

Direct General Insurance Co. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co.

661 F. App'x 980

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 29, 2016 | Docket: 65962752

Published

(the “Reasonable Amount Method”). See Fla. Stat. § 627.736(l)(a) (2007). When the statute was reenacted in

Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hallandale Open MRI, LLC

208 So. 3d 741, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14502

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 2016 | Docket: 4426703

Published

following the Legislature’s amendments to section 627.736, Florida Statutes, in 2008. In doing so, a

Progressive Select Insurance Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Central Florida, LLP

202 So. 3d 437, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13919

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 2016 | Docket: 4426871

Published

selected the fee schedule limitation under section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), if it wanted

Virga v. Progressive American Insurance Co.

215 F. Supp. 3d 1320, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184908

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 29, 2016 | Docket: 64310963

Published

(“PIP”) coverage as required by Florida Statute section 627.736 (2013).1 Id. ¶48. When Plaintiff submitted

USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Central Florida

200 So. 3d 153, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9384, 2016 WL 3353680

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2016 | Docket: 3082125

Published

after the suit was filed., USAA relies on section 627.736(4)(b)5, Florida Statutes (2012), for the proposition

Progressive Express Insurance Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Central Florida

187 So. 3d 1278, 2016 WL 1385881, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2016 | Docket: 3054137

Published

be paid from the $5000 reserve imposed by section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2011), are not subject

Allstate Indemnity Company v. Markley Chiropractic & Acupuncture, LLC

226 So. 3d 262, 2016 WL 1238533

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2016 | Docket: 3049206

Published

and all limitations authorized by Fla. Stat. § 627.736, or any other provisions of the Florida Motor

Progressive American Insurance Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Central Florida

187 So. 3d 898

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 29, 2016 | Docket: 3045463

Published

Company (“Progressive”), in accordance with section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes , (2011). However,

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 | Filed: Feb 19, 2016 | Docket: 60253889

Published

within .the 30-day reserve period provided in section 627.736(4)(c), those claims will be prioritized for

Progressive Select Insurance Co. v. Florida Emergency Physicians

183 So. 3d 489, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1531, 2016 WL 435729

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2016 | Docket: 60253028

Published

within the thirty-day window contemplated by section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), is entitled

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Delray Medical Center, Inc.

178 So. 3d 511, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16568, 2015 WL 6735339

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 2015 | Docket: 3009686

Published

treatments. We find that discovery is limited under section 627.736(6)(b) to the facts of the treatment and to

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Gonzalez

178 So. 3d 448, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15185, 2015 WL 5965211

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2015 | Docket: 2919759

Published

to comply with the notice requirements of section 627.736(5)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), State Farm

Direct General Insurance v. Houston Casualty Co.

139 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143847, 2015 WL 6160361

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2015 | Docket: 64304859

Published

Method”). (PL’s Resp. SOF at ¶ 55 (citing Fla. Stat. § 627.736(l)(a) (2007)). Direct General received demands

Scenic Health Alliance, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

124 F. Supp. 3d 1291, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111722, 2015 WL 4999640

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 2015 | Docket: 64303703

Published

State Farm to deny such coverage. See Fla. Stat. § 627.736(l)(a)(3) (the “Initial Treatment Provision”).

Orthopedic Specialists, as Assignee of Kelli Serridge v. Allstate Insurance Company

177 So. 3d 19, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12467

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 19, 2015 | Docket: 2685303

Published

reimbursements via the Medicare fee schedules in § 627.736(5)(a)2., as required by Virtual Imaging.” Id.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Pembroke Pines MRI, Inc., a/a/o Elias Cruz

171 So. 3d 814, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11958, 2015 WL 4747535

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 2015 | Docket: 2683563

Published

clearly and unambiguously adopt it. See § 627.736(5)a.2.f., Fla. Stat. (2011) (allowing an insurer

Bailey v. Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC

309 F.R.D. 675, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138637, 2015 WL 5852921

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2015 | Docket: 66055912

Published

statutory schedule, *679set forth in Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(a). Plaintiff maintains that Defendants have

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

213 So. 3d 372, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9978

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 2015 | Docket: 60263506

Published

enforcement provision available to insurers under section 627.736(6)(c), Florida Statutes.1 In applying this

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Medical Service Center of Florida, Inc.

103 F. Supp. 3d 1343, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60584, 2015 WL 2170396

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: May 8, 2015 | Docket: 64301922

Published

provided.” See Fla. Stat. § 627.736(l)(a)(l); see also Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(b)(l)(b) (“An insurer or

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. B & A Diagnostic, Inc.

104 F. Supp. 3d 1366, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64336, 2015 WL 2217312

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 6, 2015 | Docket: 64302009

Published

supervised, ordered or prescribed. ...” Fla. Stat. § 627.736(l)(a). State Farm’s Complaint alleges that Defendants

Herrera v. JFK Medical Center Ltd. Partnership

87 F. Supp. 3d 1299, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20545, 2015 WL 730039

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 2015 | Docket: 64300565

Published

or supplies.” Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(a) (emphasis added). Section 627.736(5)(a) further provides that:

South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

89 F. Supp. 3d 1338, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28348, 2015 WL 897201

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2015 | Docket: 64300730

Published

wages in the event of an automobile accident. § 627.736 Fla. Stat. (2008). Before 2008, the PIP statute

Geico v. Gables Insurance

159 So. 3d 151

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 2014 | Docket: 2613276

Published

on the fee payment structure set forth in section 627.736(5)(a)2.f., Florida Statutes (2008),1 GEICO

Enivert v. Progressive Select Insurance

62 F. Supp. 3d 1352, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166980, 2014 WL 6685500

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2014 | Docket: 64298646

Published

had an emergency medical condition.” Fla. Stat. § 627.736(l)(a)(3) (emphasis added). Additionally, the PIP

Robbins v. Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance

62 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167014, 2014 WL 6685487

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 18, 2014 | Docket: 64298645

Published

have an emergency medical condition. Fla. Stat. § 627.736 (emphasis added). The statute does not contain

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. A & J Medical Center, Inc.

20 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69025, 2014 WL 2025799

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: May 15, 2014 | Docket: 64295015

Published

time rendered.” (Id. ¶ 18 (citing FLA. STAT. § 627.736(l)(a))). In 2003, the Florida legislature enacted

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Physicians Group of Sarasota, L.L.C.

9 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40339, 2014 WL 1236240

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 2014 | Docket: 64294074

Published

costs of these services under Florida Statute Section 627.736(5)(b)(l)(b), based on Defendants’ alleged violations

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Physicians Group of Sarasota, L.L.C.

9 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40339, 2014 WL 1236240

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 2014 | Docket: 64294074

Published

costs of these services under Florida Statute Section 627.736(5)(b)(l)(b), based on Defendants’ alleged violations

Antonelli v. United Automobile Insurance Co.

133 So. 3d 1007, 2014 WL 21012, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 2, 2014 | Docket: 60238642

Published

particular coverages are statutorily mandated. § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2013); § 324.022, Fla. Stat. (2013);

Merly Nunez v. Geico General Insurance Company

726 F.3d 1231, 2013 WL 4018601, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16379

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 8, 2013 | Docket: 1220446

Published

Court of Florida: “[wjhether, under Fla. Stat. § 627.736, an insurer can require an insured to attend an

Lemy v. Direct General Finance Co.

885 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 2012 WL 2339702, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84507

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 19, 2012 | Docket: 65984240

Published

coverage already required by Florida law. Under Section 627.736(1), a driver needs a policy that pays eighty

GEICO General Insurance v. Tarpon Total Health Care

86 So. 3d 585, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6551, 2012 WL 1448610

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 2012 | Docket: 60307724

Published

doctor’s professional license number required by section 627.736(5)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). GEICO denied

Merly Nunez v. Geico General Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 3, 2012 | Docket: 2905021

Published

determine whether Florida’s PIP Statute, FLA. STAT. § 627.736, permits EUOs as a prerequisite to receiving

All Family Clinic of Daytona Beach Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.

280 F.R.D. 688, 2012 WL 759487, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33706

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2012 | Docket: 66047268

Published

charge. Here, State Farm refers to Fla. Stat. § 627.736(4)(b), which provides that an insurer may assert

DCI MRI, Inc. v. Geico Indemnity Co.

79 So. 3d 840, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 503, 2012 WL 126351

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 2012 | Docket: 60305386

Published

to the enactment of the 2008 PIP statute, section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2008). Each insured sustained

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Swindoll

89 So. 3d 246, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19893, 2011 WL 6183513

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2011 | Docket: 60308733

Published

So.2d 555, 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)); see also § 627.736(3), Fla. Stat. (2009).1 As our sister court in

Geico Indemnity Co. v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc.

79 So. 3d 55, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19041, 2011 WL 5964369

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2011 | Docket: 60305347

Published

the schedule of maximum charges described in F.S. 627.736(5)(a) if its policy does not make a specific

Sheldon v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

55 So. 3d 593, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20245

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 2010 | Docket: 60298427

Published

that *595it had paid reasonable amounts under section 627.736 for the services at issue and that benefits

Sheldon v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N

55 So. 3d 593, 2010 WL 5306461

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 2010 | Docket: 2408101

Published

*595 it had paid reasonable amounts under section 627.736 for the services at issue and that benefits

Cannino v. Progressive Express Insurance Co.

58 So. 3d 275, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19397, 2010 WL 5129298

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 2010 | Docket: 60299291

Published

sickness, or death related to motor vehicles. § 627.736(1). The insurance generally covers eighty percent

Bristol West Insurance Co. v. MD Readers, Inc.

52 So. 3d 48, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19113, 2010 WL 5093266

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 2010 | Docket: 2408058

Published

and that Bristol West improperly utilized section 627.736(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes (2003), to “wrongfully

DWFII Corp. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

271 F.R.D. 676, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133676, 2010 WL 5094242

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 2010 | Docket: 66043717

Published

reimbursements violates Florida’s No-Fault Law, Fla. Stat. § 627.736 (the “No-Fault Statute.”) A. Parties State Farm

Coleman v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc.

53 So. 3d 1052, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18623, 2010 WL 4967473

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2010 | Docket: 60297979

Published

right of subrogation. Id. at 835. At the time, section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes required the damage award

Coastal Neurology, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

271 F.R.D. 538, 78 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 21, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128031, 2010 WL 4878573

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2010 | Docket: 66043697

Published

reimbursements violates Florida’s No-Fault Law, Fla. Stat. § 627.736 (the “No-Fault Statute.”) A. Parties State Farm

Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. AFO Imaging, Inc.

46 So. 3d 140, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15907, 2010 WL 4137579

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 2010 | Docket: 60296301

Published

fee schedule authorized by the PIP statute, section 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f)(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (2008)

Porras v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

45 So. 3d 940, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15563, 2010 WL 3984729

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 2010 | Docket: 2526385

Published

2009), all of which hold that, pursuant to section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), a "valid report"

Liberatore v. MSC Cruises (USA), Inc.

268 F.R.D. 678, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74369, 2010 WL 2573350

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2010 | Docket: 66042197

Published

979, 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Florida Statute § 627.736(7)(a) requires that a person seeking PIP insurance

USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Pembroke Pines MRI, Inc.

31 So. 3d 234, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3344, 2010 WL 934074

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2010 | Docket: 1647737

Published

of the signatory of the claim form? Does F.S. § 627.736(5)(d)[1] require an independent diagnostic corporate

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Professional Medical Group, Inc.

128 So. 3d 1, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20030, 2009 WL 4934687

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 2009 | Docket: 60236934

Published

constitute a “valid medical report” under section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), because the

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Garrido

21 So. 3d 112, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16068, 2009 WL 3446471

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 2009 | Docket: 1655957

Published

IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTORY PREDICATE UNDER § 627.736(7)(A), FLA. STAT. (2003) IS ADMISSIBLE TO SUPPORT

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Med-Proud General Practice

20 So. 3d 889, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12829, 2009 WL 2762845

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 2, 2009 | Docket: 2581641

Published

that the thirty-day time period set forth in section 627.736(4)(b) does not apply to claims for unrelated

Allstate Insurance v. Advantage Open MRI, Inc.

17 So. 3d 754, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10493, 2009 WL 2341647

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 2009 | Docket: 1645673

Published

MRI performed during the effective date of section 627.736(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes (2006), should begin

GRANADA INS. CO. v. Cereceda

997 So. 2d 1243

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 2008 | Docket: 1721138

Published

section of Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2002) (emphasis added)

Granada Insurance Co. v. Mark A. Cereceda, D.C., P.A.

997 So. 2d 1243, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 20377

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 2008 | Docket: 64857386

Published

section of Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2002) (emphasis added)

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Garrido

990 So. 2d 574, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 11211, 2008 WL 2811804

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2008 | Docket: 1292000

Published

were untimely under section 627.736(5)(c)(1) of the Florida Statutes. § 627.736(5)(c)(1), Fla. Stat.

MRI Scan Center, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

273 F. App'x 835

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 14, 2008 | Docket: 65927387

Published

statutorily capped amounts set by Florida Statute § 627.736(5)(b)(5). Second, MRI Scan Center sought a declaratory

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Florida Emergency Physicians

978 So. 2d 197, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5175, 2008 WL 463678

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2008 | Docket: 64854381

Published

1542019 (Fla. 3d DCA May 30, 2007) (finding that section 627.736(6)(d), Florida Statutes, does not require an

Benites v. Almeida

973 So. 2d 498, 2007 WL 4322134

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2007 | Docket: 1292553

Published

injury protection benefits are paid or payable." § 627.736(3), Fla. Stat. (2003).[2] The Florida Supreme

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Civ. Cases (No. 06-02)

966 So. 2d 940, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 563, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1675, 2007 WL 2727120

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 20, 2007 | Docket: 1678890

Published

as for the effect of the 80% limitation in section 627.736(1)(a) and any deductible. COMMENT 1. The definition

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Feb 12, 2007 | Docket: 3256849

Published

was relevant to the residence requirement in section 627.736(4)(d)(4), Florida Statutes, regarding personal

Vasques v. Mercury Casualty Co.

947 So. 2d 1265, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1210, 2007 WL 283058

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2007 | Docket: 64848804

Published

committed fraud. Specifically, subsection 4(g) of section 627.736 provides: Benefits shall not be due or payable

Trief v. American General Life Insurance

444 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 2006 WL 2398697

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2006 | Docket: 2199103

Published

which to do *1268 so notwithstanding Fla. Stat. § 627.736 requiring payment of PIP benefits within 30 days

USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. McDermott

929 So. 2d 1114, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7873, 2006 WL 1359640

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2006 | Docket: 64844797

Published

court has held that the setoff provided in section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1991),2 does not require

Stone v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.

934 So. 2d 532, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3236, 2006 WL 544542

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2006 | Docket: 64845841

Published

Magnetic involved an arbitration provision under section 627.736(5), which was not included in the insurance

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wiggins

920 So. 2d 1257, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2456, 2006 WL 436000

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 24, 2006 | Docket: 64842458

Published

of State Farm. The circuit court ruled that section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2001), authorizes recovery

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases (05-03)

922 So. 2d 979, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 136, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 271, 2006 WL 408380

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 23, 2006 | Docket: 64842774

Published

intended to correspond to the PIP setoff statute, section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (2005), which applies

Garrido v. Victoria Fire & Casualty Co.

917 So. 2d 291, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20061, 2005 WL 3479851

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2005 | Docket: 64841576

Published

not entitled to any mileage benefits under section 627.736(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), or, alternatively

State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. v. Renfroe

915 So. 2d 212, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 17186, 2005 WL 2838215

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 2005 | Docket: 64840992

Published

6 of the act amended paragraph (l)(a), of section 627.736, Florida Statutes (the personal injury protection

Active Spine Centers, LLC v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

911 So. 2d 241, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15346, 2005 WL 2373425

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 2005 | Docket: 64840444

Published

State Farm policies or Florida’s PIP statute (section 627.736(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005), requires State Farm

Central Magnetic Imaging Open MRI of Plantation, Ltd. v. First Floridian Auto & Home Insurance

902 So. 2d 899, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8127, 2005 WL 1278819

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2005 | Docket: 64838507

Published

charges submitted by MRI service providers. Section 627.736(5)(b)5, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Chiropractic

875 So. 2d 14, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6428, 2004 WL 1058277

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 2004 | Docket: 64831057

Published

disqualification proceedings. PIP claims are covered by section 627.736(8) of the Florida Statutes, which provides

State Farm Mutual Automobile, Insurance Co. v. Universal Medical Center of South Florida, Inc.

881 So. 2d 557, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3308, 2004 WL 575442

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2004 | Docket: 64832417

Published

personal injury protection benefits under section 627.736(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2001). We begin our

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Miller

865 So. 2d 542, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19235, 2003 WL 22964282

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 2003 | Docket: 64828036

Published

correctly apply the applicable newer version of section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2000), as interpreted by

Tran v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

860 So. 2d 1000, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16117, 2003 WL 22432656

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 2003 | Docket: 64826727

Published

Statutes, applies to cases brought pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes, and to cases pending in

Tran v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

860 So. 2d 1000, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16117, 2003 WL 22432656

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 2003 | Docket: 64826727

Published

Statutes, applies to cases brought pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes, and to cases pending in

Caruso v. Baumle

835 So. 2d 276, 2002 WL 31322438

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 2003 | Docket: 1754904

Published

another more specific collateral source statute, section 627.736(3). The issue here concerns introduction of

Harris v. Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co.

821 So. 2d 1211, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10440, 2002 WL 1724026

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2002 | Docket: 64816557

Published

coverage required by section 324.021(7) and section 627.736, Florida Statutes.1 On May 15, 1999, Mrs. Harris

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Gueimunde

823 So. 2d 141, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6897, 2002 WL 1021828

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 22, 2002 | Docket: 64816759

Published

Burgess v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

823 So. 2d 130, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6040, 2002 WL 529516

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 2002 | Docket: 64816756

Published

by the insurance has resulted in a debt. See § 627.736(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). The indemnity provision

Mri Serv. Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., Company

807 So. 2d 783, 2002 WL 246577

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2002 | Docket: 1750779

Published

seeking discovery from MRI Services pursuant to section 627.736(6), Florida Statutes (1997). The petitions

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Warren

805 So. 2d 1074, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 952, 2002 WL 125608

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2002 | Docket: 64812038

Published

county court entered the judgment after holding section 627.736(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), unconstitutional

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Goldstein

798 So. 2d 807, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15026

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 2001 | Docket: 64809818

Published

discovery, as well as discovery pursuant to section 627.736(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). It appeals

Allstate Insurance v. Schall

778 So. 2d 317, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16619, 2000 WL 1854102

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2000 | Docket: 64803752

Published

review within thirty days in violation of section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). Allstate appeals

Magnetic Imaging Systems I, Ltd. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.

775 So. 2d 348, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13213, 2000 WL 1506956

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 2000 | Docket: 64802936

Published

to stay and compel arbitration pursuant to section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes, and denied the petitioners’

Garcia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

766 So. 2d 430, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10934, 2000 WL 1205624

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2000 | Docket: 64800201

Published

which is mandated by Florida Statute § 627.736(5)-” Section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1995) provides:

Union American Insurance v. USA Diagnostics, Inc.

765 So. 2d 227, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9410, 2000 WL 1022540

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2000 | Docket: 64799709

Published

concluded that while the mandatory provision of section 627.736(5)(c), Florida Statutes, does not deny medical

Progressive Express Insurance v. MTM Diagnostics, Inc.

754 So. 2d 150, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3475, 2000 WL 300530

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 2000 | Docket: 64796151

Published

arbitration pursuant to section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1997). Section 627.736(5) provides: Every insurer

Central Magnetic Imaging v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

745 So. 2d 405, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14177

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 1999 | Docket: 64792395

Published

prevailing party at arbitration pursuant to Section 627.736(5) Florida Statutes, where the medical provider

Fortune Insurance Co. v. USA Diagnostics, Inc.

736 So. 2d 1279, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9825, 1999 WL 512102

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 1999 | Docket: 64789395

Published

arbitration of the respondent’s claim pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1993), and the insured’s

Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. v. Castellano

737 So. 2d 574, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8346, 1999 WL 415188

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1999 | Docket: 64789441

Published

had available at the time of judgment. Under section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1997),1 an injured party

Milgram v. Allstate Insurance Co.

731 So. 2d 134, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5306, 1999 WL 241797

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 1999 | Docket: 64787829

Published

judgment action seeking PIP benefits pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1993). Allstate defended

Vaquero v. Security National Insurance

734 So. 2d 428, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2238, 1999 WL 104450

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 1999 | Docket: 64788572

Published

which is: ARE PAYMENTS FOR PIP BENEFITS UNDER § 627.736(4)(b) OVERDUE WHEN TIMELY MAILED BY THE INSURER

Allstate Insurance v. Gulf Diagnostics, Inc.

724 So. 2d 713, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 731, 1999 WL 31121

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 1999 | Docket: 64785618

Published

the validity of the arbitration provision in section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1997). See Sanford v. Rubin

Hill v. Burch

724 So. 2d 1237, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 468, 1999 WL 22584

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 22, 1999 | Docket: 64785848

Published

reiterating this argument the appellant relies on section 627.736(3), Fla. Stat., which limits recovery with

Ghaeenzadeh v. Allan

723 So. 2d 904, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 85, 1999 WL 4935

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 1999 | Docket: 64785294

Published

been entitled to attorney’s fees. *905Under section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1991) 1 an injured party

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Simms

724 So. 2d 162, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15956, 1998 WL 879204

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 1998 | Docket: 64785468

Published

of the bills from the provider joursuant to section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes. That statute requires

Paz v. Fidelity National Insurance

712 So. 2d 807, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7899, 1998 WL 347581

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 1998 | Docket: 64781425

Published

demanded payment within 30 days pursuant to section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). Fidelity reviewed

Allstate Insurance v. Ye Jin Jun

712 So. 2d 415, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5710, 1998 WL 256703

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 22, 1998 | Docket: 64781309

Published

of’ her insured motor vehicle. Pursuant to section 627.736, insurance companies operating in Florida must

USAA Casualty Insurance v. Romm

712 So. 2d 405, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2923, 1998 WL 130140

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 1998 | Docket: 64781305

Published

an assignment of benefits, and pursuant to section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes, because Keller was not

Allstate Insurance v. Jones

700 So. 2d 110, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11192, 1997 WL 614433

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 8, 1997 | Docket: 64776095

Published

Procedure, questioning whether the provisions of section 627.736(4)(f), Florida Statutes, require “med pay”

Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Watson

696 So. 2d 543, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8186, 1997 WL 395143

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 1997 | Docket: 64774769

Published

of the insured. (emphasis added). Further, section 627.736(4)(d)(4), Florida Statutes (1973), provided

Union American Insurance Co. v. U.S.A. Diagnostics, Inc.

697 So. 2d 560, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7752, 1997 WL 375031

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 1997 | Docket: 64775182

Published

TO INTEREST IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION UNDER SECTION 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1997), and THUS IT WAS

Bolden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

689 So. 2d 339, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 989, 1997 WL 54796

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 1997 | Docket: 64771623

Published

the following: *340DOES THE PIP STATUTE AND FLA. STAT. 627.736(4)(f) COMPEL THE ADDITION OF AN INSURED CLASS

Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cherwin

673 So. 2d 112, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4691, 1996 WL 228601

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 1996 | Docket: 64764502

Published

contact with the automobile is required under section 627.736(4)(d)4, Florida Statutes. The trial court disagreed

Crooks v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

659 So. 2d 1266, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9126

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 1995 | Docket: 64758562

Published

providers as required by Florida Statutes, Section 627.736(4)(b). On September 29, 1990, the appellant

Laninfa v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

656 So. 2d 965, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7092, 1995 WL 385392

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1995 | Docket: 64757333

Published

vehicle.” This PIP coverage substantially tracks section 627.736(4)(d)(l), Florida Statutes (1993), which requires

Newkirk v. Hannah

655 So. 2d 241, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6109, 1995 WL 334388

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 1995 | Docket: 64756490

Published

the amount of the PIP coverage provided in section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes. Appellee argues that

RJT Enterprises, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.

650 So. 2d 56, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11108, 1994 WL 637497

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 1994 | Docket: 64754156

Published

required $10,000 amount of liability coverage); and § 627.736, Fla.Stat. (1985) (mandates personal injury protection

Hazera v. Allstate Insurance Co.

638 So. 2d 177, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5796, 1994 WL 259538

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 1994 | Docket: 64749096

Published

medical provider, Palmetto General Hospital. Section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1993) provides, in part:

Levine-Britt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

625 So. 2d 141, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10791, 1993 WL 428330

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 1993 | Docket: 64743341

Published

sub*142mit to a medical examination pursuant to section 627.736(7), Fla.Stat. (1989).1 ERVIN, JOANOS and WOLF

Pundik v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

597 So. 2d 359, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4402, 1992 WL 73532

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 1992 | Docket: 64666759

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 627.736, Fla.Stat. (1989).

Fortune Insurance Co. v. Iriban

593 So. 2d 598, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1050, 1992 WL 21864

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 1992 | Docket: 64665274

Published

Fortune Ins. Co., 563 So.2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); § 627.736(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989), and (2) counsel stipulated

Esker v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

593 So. 2d 303, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 406, 1992 WL 9720

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 1992 | Docket: 64665131

Published

passenger in a school bus is in compliance with section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1989). Subsection 627.736(1)

Ponders v. Fortune Insurance Co.

578 So. 2d 1129, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2307, 1991 WL 35348

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1991 | Docket: 64658517

Published

to deny PIP benefits to the insured under Section 627.736(7)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989) based on this refusal

Ledesma v. Bankers Insurance Co.

573 So. 2d 1042, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 803, 1991 WL 11742

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1991 | Docket: 64656082

Published

and of the amount of same,” to make payment. § 627.736(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989); see Obando v. Fortune

Giancola ex rel. Selective Insurance Co. of America v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.

569 So. 2d 849, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8497, 1990 WL 169366

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 1990 | Docket: 64654315

Published

maintained in Florida. The trial court relied upon section 627.736(3) and section 627.7372(1), Florida Statutes

Giarrusso v. Amiga Mutual Insurance

564 So. 2d 160, 1990 WL 82544

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 1990 | Docket: 64651614

Published

by his insurance. Appellant contends that section 627.-736(4)(f), Florida Statutes (1985), does not allow

Pearson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

560 So. 2d 416, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3026, 1990 WL 57820

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1990 | Docket: 64650176

Published

non-occupants who were struck by the vehicle. See § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Although clearly a legal

Donaldson v. Allstate Insurance Co.

553 So. 2d 288, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2746, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6651, 1989 WL 142948

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 1989 | Docket: 64646791

Published

to an independent medical examination under section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (1987). We remand with

Popovich v. Overland Transport

543 So. 2d 302, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1074, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2418, 1989 WL 46723

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 1989 | Docket: 64642547

Published

were subject to a $10,000 cap pursuant to section 627.-736(1), Florida Statutes, were exhausted. The

Lara v. Fortune Insurance Co.

545 So. 2d 909, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 952, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1953, 1989 WL 34824

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 1989 | Docket: 64643421

Published

not timely pay these benefits as required by section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), and Lara filed

Jones v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Co.

539 So. 2d 547, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 662, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1238, 1989 WL 20107

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 1989 | Docket: 64640863

Published

contributed to his injury “while committing a felony.” § 627.736(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985). Because there are unresolved

Thompson v. Allstate Insurance Co.

539 So. 2d 6, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 514, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 841, 1989 WL 13073

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 1989 | Docket: 64640737

Published

from the motorist’s insurer [Allstate] under Section 627.736(4)(d)(4), Florida Statutes (1987). The plaintiff

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Zuckerman

538 So. 2d 895, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 214, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 186, 1989 WL 2039

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 1989 | Docket: 64640619

Published

for medical payments. State Farm relies on section 627.-736(4)(f), Florida Statutes (1987), as support

Christian v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co.

537 So. 2d 623, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 9, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5581, 1988 WL 135345

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 1988 | Docket: 64640037

Published

coverage notwithstanding the requirements of section 627.736(4)(f), Florida Statutes (1985). The trial court

Greer v. State Automobile Insurance Co.

530 So. 2d 509, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2086, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3941, 1988 WL 91219

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 7, 1988 | Docket: 64636751

Published

Auto for the duplicate payments. We reverse. Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes, of the Florida Motor

Conwell v. South Carolina Insurance Co.

528 So. 2d 920, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1435, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2527, 1988 WL 60478

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 1988 | Docket: 64636130

Published

of a motor vehicle” within the meaning of section 627.-736(1), Florida Statutes (1985), “while occupying

Jorglewich v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

522 So. 2d 114, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 769, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1117, 1988 WL 23656

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 1988 | Docket: 64633598

Published

coverage was denied below and she appeals. Under section 627.736(1)(b), Florida Statutes, a PIP insured is entitled

Pena v. Allstate Insurance Co.

523 So. 2d 674, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 757, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1110, 1988 WL 23459

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 1988 | Docket: 64634189

Published

paid his bills pursuant to the PIP statute, Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1985). Thereafter, the company

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dixon ex rel. Dixon

508 So. 2d 542, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8853

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 1987 | Docket: 64627850

Published

an excluded “self-propelled vehicle” under section 627.736(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1985). Based on the

Parker v. Atlas Mutual Insurance Co.

506 So. 2d 475, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1150, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7995

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1987 | Docket: 64626845

Published

“ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.” § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat. Having reviewed the record before

Smith v. Fortune Insurance Co.

506 So. 2d 73, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1128, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7935

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1987 | Docket: 64626720

Published

the meaning of section 627.-736(4)(d)l, Florida Statutes (1985). We affirm. Section 627.736(1), Florida

Jackson v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

502 So. 2d 1331, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 625, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6962

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 1987 | Docket: 64625270

Published

maintenance or use’ of the motor vehicle. Section 627.736(1). See also Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ryan

500 So. 2d 735, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 232, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6271

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 1987 | Docket: 64624286

Published

the vehicle that struck her, Liberty Mutual. § 627.-736(4)(d)(4), Fla.Stat. Liberty Mutual asserted by

Welty v. Continental Insurance Co.

498 So. 2d 643, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2591, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11293

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 1986 | Docket: 64623523

Published

any, is governed by the provisions of Florida Statute 627.-736(4)(d)l. Benefits under this sub-section

Frielingsdorf v. Allstate Insurance Co.

497 So. 2d 289, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2230, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10242

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 1986 | Docket: 64622845

Published

the provisions of its insurance policy1 and section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1979),2 that plaintiff

Benitez v. Biltmore Systems, Inc.

496 So. 2d 189, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2129, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10012

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 1986 | Docket: 64622354

Published

court for further proceedings in light of section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1985). Reversed and remanded

Progressive American Insurance Co. v. Belcher

496 So. 2d 841, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9720, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2011

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 1986 | Docket: 64622613

Published

in Altamonte Springs, Florida, pursuant to section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), because there

Willingham v. Travelers Insurance Co.

483 So. 2d 778, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 387, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6541

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 1986 | Docket: 64617528

Published

territories or possessions or Canada.... See § 627.736(4)(d) 2., Fla.Stat. (1979) ("The insurer of the

Western World Ins. Co. v. Gleaves

481 So. 2d 557, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 216

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 1986 | Docket: 548657

Published

"arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" in section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), is a general,

Sturgis v. Fortune Insurance Co.

475 So. 2d 1272, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2049, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15660

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 1985 | Docket: 64614437

Published

excluded from coverage under the policy by section 627.736(4)(d)4, Florida Statutes (1983), which requires

The Florida Bar v. Gentry

475 So. 2d 678, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 490

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 29, 1985 | Docket: 1301921

Published

personal injury protection benefits under Section 627.736 Florida Statutes was based solely on the labor

Prinzo ex rel. Puleo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

465 So. 2d 1364, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 816, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13134

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 27, 1985 | Docket: 64610862

Published

reference to personal injury protection benefits, section 627.736(4)(d)l, Florida Statutes (1983), provides:

Prinzo ex rel. Puleo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

465 So. 2d 1364, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 816, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13134

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 27, 1985 | Docket: 64610862

Published

reference to personal injury protection benefits, section 627.736(4)(d)l, Florida Statutes (1983), provides:

Fortune Insurance Co. v. Sims

464 So. 2d 251, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 567, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12771

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 1985 | Docket: 64610197

Published

required to be provided by the PIP insurer under section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes, under a “no deductible”

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Jackson

463 So. 2d 538, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 434, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12385

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 1985 | Docket: 64609902

Published

maintenance, or use of a vehicle as provided under section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1982), and appellant was

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Acosta

452 So. 2d 1060, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14315

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 1984 | Docket: 64605931

Published

the section in question in conjunction with section 627.736(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes (1979), which requires

Echevarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

447 So. 2d 1014, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12569

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 1984 | Docket: 64603863

Published

rather than the present insurer. Affirmed. . § 627.736(4)(d). The insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle

Velez v. Criterion Insurance Co.

445 So. 2d 1049, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11502

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 1984 | Docket: 64603126

Published

and specifically by the interpretation of section 627.736(4)(d)l, Florida Statutes (1981). The precise

Julian v. Johnson

438 So. 2d 503, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24451

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1983 | Docket: 64599838

Published

in this state during such period. Finally, section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), says: Every insurance

Haley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

438 So. 2d 914, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22409

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1983 | Docket: 64599985

Published

policy- In conformance with the requirements of Section 627.736(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), the policy

Coralluzzo ex rel. Coralluzzo v. Fass

435 So. 2d 262, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19495

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 1983 | Docket: 64598504

Published

(1981) (regulating reports by hospitals), and section 627.736(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1981) (regulating

Lewis v. Allstate Insurance

425 So. 2d 100, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21991

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1982 | Docket: 64594635

Published

Chapman, 415 So.2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Section 627.-736(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes, requires payment

Carter v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

423 So. 2d 623, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22338

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1982 | Docket: 64594022

Published

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. § 627.736(4)(dX2), Fla. Stat. (1981). See Travelers Insurance Company v. Bartoszewicz

Colson v. General Insurance Co.

423 So. 2d 494, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21789

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 1982 | Docket: 64593961

Published

and was driving at the time of her injury, section 627.736(4)(d)4.a., and correspondingly is not entitled

Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Augustin

412 So. 2d 418, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28616

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 1982 | Docket: 64589251

Published

Company, 328 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Section 627.736(4)(d)(4), Florida Statutes (1979). Therefore

Lippincott v. Exotica Imports, Inc.

413 So. 2d 66, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19533

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1982 | Docket: 64589568

Published

benefits to the extent of $5,000 as set forth in section 627.736. From the time of the purchase of the automobile

Kwechin v. Industrial Fire & Cas. Co.

409 So. 2d 28

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 1982 | Docket: 1525415

Published

(1977), that is, the eighty per cent called for by § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (1977), but with no deductible.

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Furlan

408 So. 2d 767, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18957

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 1982 | Docket: 1449187

Published

policy is governed by section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1979). Section 627.736(4)(d)4 provides that accidental

Blume v. American Motorist Insurance Co.

407 So. 2d 1046, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22093

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 1981 | Docket: 64587094

Published

of medical payments not to exceed $5,000. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1979) provides that PIP

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Gorman

404 So. 2d 1147, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21436

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 1981 | Docket: 64585582

Published

maximum they are obligated to pay as provided in section 627.736(1) and (4)(e), Florida Statutes (1979). In

Wicker v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

404 So. 2d 393, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21268

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 1981 | Docket: 64585387

Published

Bunnell but there was in Ormond Beach, Florida. Section 627.-736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), which authorizes

Cotton Belt Insurance Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co.

402 So. 2d 69, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20748

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1981 | Docket: 64584550

Published

injury protection (PIP) coverage pursuant to Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975). On April 18, 1976

Reynolds v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia

399 So. 2d 519, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20115

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1981 | Docket: 64583065

Published

protection (PIP) benefits then applicable under section 627.736). Appellant brought this suit to collect the

Diaz v. South Carolina Insurance Co.

397 So. 2d 386, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19291

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1981 | Docket: 64582130

Published

Carolina Insurance Company, on the basis of Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1979), under the personal

Kenilworth Insurance v. McCormick

394 So. 2d 1037, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19583

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1981 | Docket: 64580804

Published

the change-of-car endorsement was issued. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1977), requires that personal

Apodaca v. Old Security Insurance

389 So. 2d 320, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17855

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 1980 | Docket: 64578456

Published

personal injury protection benefits under Section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1974) [since repealed

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez

387 So. 2d 341, 1980 Fla. LEXIS 4266

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 1980 | Docket: 64577880

Published

protection benefits under the provisions of section 627.736(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1975). The trial court

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Pierce

383 So. 2d 1184, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16378

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 1980 | Docket: 64576291

Published

benefits twice, but this is not so, since section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1977), specifically precludes

Lopez v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

384 So. 2d 680, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16791

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 20, 1980 | Docket: 64576559

Published

for coverage under Rodriguez’ policy because Section 627.736(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), in pertinent

Guthrie v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

382 So. 2d 1312

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 1980 | Docket: 64575798

Published

within the meaning of an exclusion contained in Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1977) and that therefore

Valdez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

381 So. 2d 743, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16323

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 1980 | Docket: 64575171

Published

Insurance Co., 359 So.2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). Reversed and remanded.

South Carolina Insurance v. Rodriguez

366 So. 2d 168, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14141

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 1979 | Docket: 64567969

Published

(Fla. 3d DCA 1978) and the clear dictates of Section 627.736(4)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), we must

Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

365 So. 2d 441, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17146

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 19, 1978 | Docket: 64567681

Published

providing the coverage and benefits described in § 627.736(1) shall offer to the named insureds modified

Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Braddy

363 So. 2d 399, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16471

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 1978 | Docket: 64566642

Published

benefits from another insurance company. Section 627.-736(4)(e), Fla.Stat.; State Farm Mutual Automobile

Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Avellaneda

363 So. 2d 35, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16733

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 1978 | Docket: 64566482

Published

the defendant appealed. Both parties rely on Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975). Appellee claims coverage

Davis v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

356 So. 2d 794, 1978 Fla. LEXIS 4743

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 1978 | Docket: 64563552

Published

advised petitioner’s attorney that since, under Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1975), workmen’s compensation

Pruna v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island

355 So. 2d 197, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 22339

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 1978 | Docket: 64562897

Published

Insurance Co., 346 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1975).

Pruna v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island

355 So. 2d 197, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 22339

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 1978 | Docket: 64562897

Published

Insurance Co., 346 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1975).

Bennett v. Stonewall Insurance Co.

348 So. 2d 680, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16373

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 1977 | Docket: 64559658

Published

equitable distribution entered pursuant to Section 627.736(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1975). The burden

Stonewall Insurance Co. v. Valbuena

344 So. 2d 603, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15652

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 1977 | Docket: 64558021

Published

personal injury protection lien pursuant to Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975). Appellee, petitioner

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Davis

343 So. 2d 669, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15489

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 1977 | Docket: 64557618

Published

Automobile Reparations Act, subsection (4) of Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides that

Comeau v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

342 So. 2d 1085, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15381

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 1977 | Docket: 64557310

Published

Automobile Reparations Act, subsection (4) of Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides that

Security Insurance Co. v. Howgate

343 So. 2d 641, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15476

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 1977 | Docket: 64557602

Published

Reparations Reform (no-fault) Act. As provided in Section 627.736(4)(d), “The insurer of the owner of a motor

Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. McInroy

342 So. 2d 842, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15324

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1977 | Docket: 64557210

Published

personal injury protection benefits on the ground Section 627.736(2) authorizes insurance policies to exclude

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Guerra

340 So. 2d 1221, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 22507

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 1977 | Docket: 64556521

Published

not an owner of a motor vehicle, pursuant to Section 627.736(4)(d) 4.a, Florida Statutes (1975), however

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Nicholson

337 So. 2d 860, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15503

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 1976 | Docket: 64555228

Published

Reparations Reform Act (hereinafter “the Act”), F.S. § 627.736(4)(d)(l) as a “motorcycle.” After a hearing the

Reliance Insurance Companies v. Kilby

336 So. 2d 629, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15356

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 1976 | Docket: 64554792

Published

proceeding for equitable distribution under Fla.Stat. § 627.736. Appellant, Reliance Insurance Company, paid $778

Protective Nat'l Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Bergouignan

335 So. 2d 871

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 1976 | Docket: 2572402

Published

that Bienvenido is barred pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.736. The trial judge was correct as to Marta Bergouignan

Long Island Insurance v. Frank

328 So. 2d 542, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14912

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 1976 | Docket: 64552874

Published

motor vehicle not owned by the plaintiff. Section 627.736(4) (d) (3), Fla.Stat., provides that the insurer

Brandal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

327 So. 2d 867, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14745

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 1976 | Docket: 64552694

Published

court erred in ruling that the provisions of Section 627.-736(4) (d), Florida Automobile Reparations Reform

Morse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

328 So. 2d 542, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14911

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 1976 | Docket: 64552873

Published

injury protection benefits pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 627.736. On this appeal, the single point presented urges

Martinez v. Old Security Casualty Insurance

327 So. 2d 786, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14692

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 20, 1976 | Docket: 64552658

Published

insurance policy. We cannot agree. We find that § 627.736(4) (d), which reads in pertinent part as follows

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Tote

325 So. 2d 57, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15226

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 1976 | Docket: 64551769

Published

discretion in awarding it only $500 pursuant to § 627.736(3) (b), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., providing for equitable

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Benton

322 So. 2d 618, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18823

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1975 | Docket: 64550560

Published

equitable distribution entered pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 627.736(3) (b). The order will be affirmed. This opinion

Unigard Mutual Insurance v. Sugarman

314 So. 2d 238, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13738

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1975 | Docket: 64547233

Published

Reyes v. Banks, Fla.App.1974, 292 So.2d 39; § 627.736(3) (b) Fla.Stat.

Herrera v. Gosnell

297 So. 2d 876, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6906

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 1974 | Docket: 64540316

Published

based upon the trial court’s interpretation of F.S. 627.736 (1971). We reverse and remand upon the authority

Schwartz v. Hughey

292 So. 2d 43, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7703

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 1974 | Docket: 64537954

Published

involves the interpretation of Section 627.736(3) (a) and Section 627.-736(3) (b), Florida Statutes, F.S

Protective National Insurance Co. of Omaha v. Roberts

287 So. 2d 362, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6191

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 1973 | Docket: 64536322

Published

the policy. The no-fault reimbursement statute, § 627.736(3), Fla.Stat, F.S.A., is inap*364plicable here

Murray v. Leatherby Insurance Company

287 So. 2d 344

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 1973 | Docket: 1170677

Published

equitable distribution referred to in Fla. Stat. § 627.736(3)(b), F.S.A. should be applied. We concur. We