VELO CHIRO FIZIK, INC., A/A/O ALFONSO QUIROGA v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •       Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed December 14, 2022.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D21-353
    Lower Tribunal No. 15-3378 SP
    ________________
    Velo Chiro Fizik, Inc. a/a/o Alfonso Quiroga,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Milena
    Abreu, Judge.
    Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., and Chad A. Barr (Altamonte
    Springs), for appellant.
    Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Daniel E. Nordby, Jason Gonzalez
    (Tallahassee) and Garrett A. Tozier (Tampa), for appellee.
    Before EMAS, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    In this appeal, the medical provider, Velo Chiro Fizik, Inc., challenges
    final summary judgment entered in favor of the insurer, Allstate Fire &
    Casualty Insurance Company, on a claim that Allstate breached the
    applicable personal injury protection policy by failing to pay benefits due for
    medical services provided to the insured. We discern no error and affirm the
    entry of summary judgment to the extent the trial court found that the policy
    at issue provides legally sufficient notice of the insurer’s election to use the
    permissive fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2. of the Florida
    Statutes. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, 
    212 So. 3d 973
    ,
    979 (Fla. 2017). We are constrained to otherwise reverse, however, because
    the record is devoid of an affidavit or other summary judgment evidence
    showing that Allstate paid the proper amount due under the fee schedules.
    See Gonzalez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 
    273 So. 3d 1031
    , 1036 (Fla. 3d
    DCA 2019) (“To fulfill his burden [the summary judgment movant] must offer
    sufficient admissible evidence to support his claim of the non-existence of a
    genuine issue. If he fails to do this his motion is lost.” (quoting Harvey Bldg.,
    Inc. v. Haley, 
    175 So. 2d 780
    , 783 (Fla. 1965))). As such, we affirm in part,
    reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
    opinion.
    Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-0353

Filed Date: 12/14/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/14/2022