UNIVERSAL RAYS CORP v. INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY (2026)

Appellant, Universal X Rays Corp., as the assignee of Alejandro Botero Cano, the insured, appeals from a trial court order adjudicating cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of appellee, Infinity Auto Insurance Company, the insurer. Our de novo review of the record yields no error in the finding below that the summary judgment evidence established that Infinity exhausted the policy limits of the insured's personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits by sequentially paying valid claims in good faith. See GEICO Indem. Co. v. Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc., 159 So. 3d 151, 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Once the PIP benefits are exhausted through the payment of valid claims, an insurer has no further liability on unresolved, pending claims, absent bad faith in the handling of the claim by the insurance company.” (quoting Northwoods Sports Med. & Physical Rehab., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 137 So. 3d 1049, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014))); Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Stand-Up MRI of Orlando, 990 So. 2d 3, 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (holding the insurer was not required to pay PIP benefits to provider because insured's coverage had been exhausted); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”); Whitlow v. Tallahassee Mem'l HealthCare, Inc., 421 So. 3d 729, 735–36 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (“One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses.” (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986))). We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

MILLER, J.