STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC INC (2023)

This appeal arises out of a small claims suit brought by Precision Diagnostic, Inc., as assignee of Lesdie Conner (“the Provider”), against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“the Insurer”), alleging that the Insurer did not pay the full amount owed under the policy. In a joint pre-trial stipulation, the parties agreed that “[t]he main issue for the trier of fact is whether the language of State Farm's 9810A policy, which is the applicable policy in relation to this claim, permits State Farm to limit reimbursement pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Charges.”

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The arguments turned on differing interpretations of the policy language, a matter which has since been put to rest by the Florida Supreme Court. See MRI Assocs. of Tampa, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2021). The trial court entered summary judgment for the Provider. Based on MRI Associates of Tampa, we reverse.

The Provider argues that there are remaining disputed factual issues related to the contents of the policy at the time of issuance or renewal that preclude summary judgment. Based on stipulations the parties entered below, we reject the argument. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the Insurer. See Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Back on Track, LLC, 342 So. 3d 779, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Per Curiam.

May, Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.