State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Figler Family Chiropractic, P.A., a/a/o Linda Manners, 189 So. 3d 970

Background

Figler Family Chiropractic sued State Farm in county court for unpaid PIP benefits for treatment to State Farm’s insured; State Farm contested necessity/relation and filed a doctor’s affidavit and report during discovery with a notice stating the materials could be used “for any purpose.”
The clinic moved for summary judgment on whether the treatment was reasonable, related, and necessary; hearing was set ~45 days after the motion.
State Farm did not file a separate 1.510(c) notice in the window immediately before the hearing but attempted to rely on the previously filed affidavit at the summary-judgment hearing.
The county court excluded the affidavit as noncompliant with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (which requires the adverse party to identify summary-judgment evidence by notice at specified times) and granted summary judgment for the clinic.
State Farm appealed to the circuit court (appellate capacity), which affirmed per curiam; State Farm sought certiorari review to challenge the rule interpretation as adding a post-motion timing requirement.
The Fourth District denied the certiorari petition, holding the trial court correctly applied the plain wording of rule 1.510(c) and requiring timely identification of evidence by notice prior to the summary-judgment hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rule 1.510(c) requires an adverse party to serve a notice identifying summary-judgment evidence within the pre-hearing time windows even if the evidence is already filed in the court file	The clinic: rule’s plain language ("shall identify by notice") mandates a timely pre-hearing notice; a generic earlier filing/notice that did not identify evidence between motion and hearing is insufficient	State Farm: rule permits identification at any time before the hearing; evidence already in the record and a prior notice of filing suffice — there is no added requirement that notice be served after the motion is filed	Held: Rule 1.510(c) requires the adverse party to identify by notice the summary-judgment evidence within the specified pre-hearing time; an earlier generic filing/notice that did not comply with the timing/identification requirements was insufficient, so exclusion and summary judgment were proper
Whether the circuit court, ruling in appellate capacity, departed from essential requirements of law by affirming the county court’s exclusion of the affidavit	Clinic: enforcement of the rule prevents ambush/game-playing and aids the court’s ability to assess disputes of material fact	State Farm: excluding evidence already in the file that was clearly intended to oppose summary judgment denied due process and frustrates justice; rules should be interpreted flexibly to avoid ‘gotcha’ results	Held: No departure — enforcing the rule’s plain timing/notice requirements does not constitute a miscarriage of justice; preventing ambush tactics justifies exclusion
Whether a generic "for any purpose" notice filed before the motion can satisfy rule 1.510(c)	Clinic: generic notices don’t satisfy the rule’s specificity and timing requirements	State Farm: its earlier "for any purpose" notice and filing put the clinic on notice that the affidavit would be used	Held: Generic "for any purpose" notices filed before the motion do not meet the rule’s identification requirement; a timely specific notice or timely post-motion general notice of existing filings would suffice
Whether courts should apply the rule strictly or flexibly to avoid injustice/game-playing	Clinic: strict application promotes fair, orderly summary-judgment practice and prevents ambushes	State Farm: flexible/plain-meaning approach avoids penalizing disclosure and prevents denying justice where no surprise occurred	Held: Court favored a stricter, plain-language enforcement of the rule to minimize gamesmanship while acknowledging concerns about rule rigidity raised in dissent

Key Cases Cited

In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure (Two Year Cycle), 917 So.2d 176 (explaining amendment requiring parties to identify and serve summary-judgment evidence)
Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086 (standards for certiorari review of circuit court in appellate capacity)
Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (certiorari standard—departure from essential requirements of law)
Adams v. Bell Partners, Inc., 138 So.3d 1054 (summary-judgment motion must state grounds with particularity; courts err when granting on grounds not raised)
Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So.3d 904 (appellate review considers record evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So.3d 786 (procedural-rule construction reviewed de novo; apply plain meaning)
Demos v. Walker, 126 So. 306 (procedural rules should aid speedy determination but yield to higher purpose of justice)