DAVID RIVERA v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 21-0027

Background:

State Farm issued Rivera a PIP policy; Rivera was injured in a March 28, 2014 auto accident and providers submitted medical bills that State Farm paid.
Rivera sought PIP transportation reimbursement by letter(s): July 10, 2014 (claimed 16 trips to “Kendall Chiropractic,” no dates, no addresses, no per-trip amounts and misidentified provider); August 7, 2014 (responding to insurer, listed 12 dates and an average of 6 miles but no per-trip dollar amounts); August 11, 2014 (pre-suit demand attaching the July 10 letter but still lacking an itemized statement).
State Farm requested itemization, paid $32.54 based on a 56.5¢/mile rate, and disputed Rivera’s 61¢/mile claim; Rivera sued seeking $2.59 plus attorney’s fees.
State Farm moved for summary judgment arguing Rivera’s pre-suit demand failed the specificity requirements of section 627.736(10), Florida Statutes.
The county court entered summary judgment for State Farm, finding Rivera’s demand letters did not specify each exact amount, the dates of treatment or service, provider address, or the number of trips; the appellate court affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rivera's pre-suit demand complied with section 627.736(10)'s specificity requirement	Rivera argued his letters and attachments gave State Farm adequate notice and that the court should not narrowly construe the statute; he also argued State Farm waived the issue	State Farm argued the letters failed to state with specificity the name/address of provider, exact amounts per date, dates of service, and whether claim was for 12 or 16 trips, so suit was premature	Court held the demand was deficient under §627.736(10): it lacked itemized exact amounts, dates, and accurate provider identification/address, so summary judgment for insurer was proper
Whether substantial compliance or strict compliance controls demand-letter sufficiency	Rivera argued notice and partial information constituted substantial compliance	State Farm urged strict statutory compliance so insurer can calculate exact amount owed before exposure to fees	Court applied strict/precise reading of subsection requiring an itemized statement "specifying each exact amount" and affirmed strict application in this record
Whether insurer forfeited the specificity defense by pleadings or through payment	Rivera contended State Farm had notice and even paid the transportation claim, so it could not rely on a pleading defect	State Farm maintained it preserved the defense and that payment did not cure the defective demand because the demand never stated the exact amount sought	Court rejected Rivera's preservation arguments and found the record (correspondence, deposition testimony) supported that the demand letter itself was invalid

Key Cases Cited

Malu v. Security Nat'l Ins. Co., 898 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2005) (PIP covers reasonable, medically necessary transportation costs)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Holy Cross Hosp., 961 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2007) (give statutes their plain meaning; courts must follow clear legislative text)
Knowles v. Beverly Enters.-Fla., Inc., 898 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2004) (legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction)
Borden v. E.-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006) (interpretation begins with statute's plain language)
MRI Assocs. of Am., LLC v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 61 So. 3d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (demand letters require precision; itemized statement must specify each exact amount)
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2001) (late payment penalties and fee exposure under No-Fault scheme)
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc., 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2013) (de novo review for PIP statutory and policy interpretation)
Bridgeport, Inc. v. Tampa Roofing Co., 903 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (proper remedy for failure to comply with pre-suit notice is summary judgment)