“Equitable Estoppel” – Domotor light

 Florida’s version of American Transit Ins. Co., United Auto Ins. Co, disclaimed benefits on the basis of a purported material misrepresentation that was made on the insurance application. United later realized there was no material misrepresentation and they were mistaken.

Medical provider sends bills United Auto Ins. Co well after the 35-day period under FSA 627.736(5)(c) to submit the bills. United Auto denies on this ground.

Provider brings a lawsuit stating that the insurance carrier is “equittably esopped” from disclaiming coverage based upon the prior disclaimer.

Presuit demand was made; the carrier did not pay. A lawsuit was commenced in Miami-Dade County Court. The parties agreed that necessity, relatedness and reasonableness were not issues. The parties made dueling summary judgment motions. The County Court sustained the defense of equittable estoppel

United appealed and the 3d DCA affirned in a written opinion.

“Through no fault of his own, Akins was advised by United Auto that he was not covered by PIP, and relying on this information he told CCSF that he had no PIP coverage. Neither Akins nor CCSF discovered United Auto’s error until January 2015, and CCSF sent its bill to United Auto within thirty five days of that discovery. Despite this, United Auto continued to deny coverage until November 2018, months after discovery revealed that United Auto had based its denial of coverage on the wrong Dorothy Akins. The problem is one of United Auto’s making, not Akins’ or CCSF’s

United Auto denied Akins had PIP coverage based on United Auto’s faulty research –not, as United Auto asserts, on Akins’ failure to provide accurate information. Once forced to concede its error, United Auto changed its tactic, and sought to avoid coverage by arguing CCSF failed to submit its bill within the statutory thirty-five days from provision of services. This is a circumstance in which equitable estoppel applies in order to avoid an unreasonable and unjust result. We conclude, on de novo review, that United Auto was properly estopped from denying coverage based on its own
conduct.

Affirmed.”

Assume a medical necessity denial (they come in few and far between) or an EUO no-show denial (those are frequent). Can I still argue equitable estoppel? I called this “Domotor light” because I do not know the answer. Instead of a broad based legal pronouncement, I get a fact based nuanced decision. Florida courts are good like this. They hate deciding broad issues. First, you generally have either the PCA or summary reversal. Assuming you can get past that, the written decisions are quixiotic. And things are “better” now that the County Court orders go to the DCA as opposed to the “Circuit Court Appellate Division” where the orders were usually not even reported.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Monies paid for fraudulently procured services or supplies may be recovered under limited circumstances

  In a case with major implications, the Appellate Term for the 9th and 10th Judicial Districts reached a key compromise behind the dicta found at the Appellate Term’s holding in Fair Price v. Travelers (a precluded defense based upon fraud and unjust enrichment may be recouped in a civil action) and one of the many holdings in Cornell Medical v. Mercury (counterclaims or civil actions for paid-out monies are not permitted when the defense to the paid-out monies has been precluded). Namely, a counterclaim or civil action is permitted where the payments to the alleged fraudulent claims are made within 30-days of receipt of the bills.  To quote the court: If an insurer is precluded from asserting a defense due to its failure to pay or deny a claim within the 30-day claim determination period, it may not later seek to recover amounts it paid on the claim based on a theory of unjust enrichment ( see e.g. Cornell Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. , 24 Misc 3d 58  [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th
Read more

Intercompany arbitration is inappropriate in New Jersey between a PIP carrier and a major medical insurance carrier

One of the interesting aspects or evolution of New Jersey PIP law is that is has devolved from a comprehensive all encompassing benefit to one that is either limited or non-existent. The historians will remember that until the 1990 Fair Automobile Insurance Reform Act, there was not coverage limit. That changed to $250,000 in 1990 along with the ability to have major medical be deemed primary.. In 1998, AICRA brought the common $15,000 PIP policies and mandated arbitration.   The question that lurked is what happened when major medical said go to PIP, PIP as secondary pays and then seeks to subrogate against the major medical carrier. The Appellate Division said you’re out of luck. (1) “When a PIP-as-secondary insurer receives a claim eligible for primary coverage, it must deny coverage and send the insured a notice advising them to submit the claim to their health insurer” (2) ” Health insurers are also required to make prompt payment of claims, but are governed by N.J.A.C. 11:22-1.1
Read more

When many new Court of Appeals Judge is a former prosecutor

This is not too off topic. The Court of Appeals is run by the prior DA of Westchester. Nassau County DA Singas has now been elevated to the Court of Appeals. Finally, Judge Garcis was a former prosecutor. Judge Cannataro was just elevated to the Court of Appeals but he reminded me of Judge Jeremy Weinstein – a professional administration judge, Not a bad thing mind you. So how does a bench with a dearth of Civil non-criminal experience handle insurance disputes and personal injury disputes? I really do now know. I have read on the criminal law blogs that the defense bar is crying, and I can understand their concern. But it seems that much of the decisions seem to be not necessarily on the pro-consumer side.  Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 2021 NY Slip Op 03484 (2021)(in effect killing a wage and hour case through limited the bar on collateral estoppel found in the uniform small claims acts);  Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. ,
Read more