County Court Rules in Favor of Insurer Regarding Attorney’s Fees in Suit Where Insurer Cured Plaintiff’s § 627.736(10) Demand Letter by Issuing Payment for the Full Amount Demanded.

This suit involved a complaint filed by the plaintiff following the defendant’s attempt to fully cure the plaintiff’s § 627.736(10) demand letter, demanding a total of $427.25 for treatment rendered to it’s patient for dates of service February 15, 2019 through March 4, 2019. In responding to the demand letter, State Farm issued payment in PIP benefits in the amount of $427.25, with applicable interest, penalty and postage pursuant to Fla. Stat. 627.736. 

Despite curing the demand letter, the plaintiff filed suit. During the course of litigation, State Farm served the plaintiff with a proposed motion to tax attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.105, along with a 21-day safe harbor letter. Despite being served with the proposed motion, the plaintiff did not dismiss within the prescribed 21-day period, resulting in State Farm filing the motion with the court on March 15, 2022. The plaintiff then dismissed the suit without prejudice 14 days later. 

In deciding whether to impose sanctions on the plaintiff, the court found that both the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel knew or should have known that the claim presented in the complaint was not supported by the material facts since the demand letter was cured in full. Accordingly, the court found that State Farm was entitled to it’s attorney’s fees under section 57.105 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d). 

This order is significant for insurance carriers as it is a common practice for plaintiffs to file PIP suits even after a purported demand letter is cured, often citing other novel theories of liability not ascertained in the demand letter. Carriers should always consider utilizing Fla. Stat. 57.105 when dealing with a suit filed after an attempt to cure the demand letter was made. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}