United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Palm Chiropractic Center, Inc.
51 So. 3d 506
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- UAIC petitions for writ of certiorari to quash circuit court’s decision affirming county court’s final summary judgment for Palm on Palm’s PIP claim.
- Thomas was injured in an auto accident and assigned her PIP benefits to Palm Chiropractic Center.
- UAIC had paid some benefits and, after an independent medical exam, sent a check with a cover letter stating no further treatment was necessary; the check read 'Pay to the order of PALM CHIROPRACTIC CTR FOR FULL & FINAL PAYMENT OF PIP BENEFITS F/A/O JOYCE THOMAS' and Palm cashed it.
- Palm continued to treat Thomas; UAIC refused to pay additional PIP benefits; Palm sued in county court for the outstanding benefits and attorney’s fees.
- County court granted Palm summary judgment for $2,154.03 plus fees; circuit court affirmed, relying on St. Mary’s Hospital v. Schocoff; petition for certiorari was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does cashing a check with 'full & final payment' language create accord and satisfaction? | Palm argues the check was not an accord because it was partial and did not reflect settlement of disputed benefits beyond the tendered amount. | Palm contends UAIC’s check, by its language, communicated a full accord and final settlement of all further PIP benefits. | No accord; but issue discussed as erroneous application of law, not reversible error under certiorari. |
| Was the circuit court’s second-tier certiorari review properly applicable and limited in scope? | Palm emphasizes narrow certiorari scope and that the circuit court properly applied the law. | UAIC maintains the circuit court correctly applied law; certiorari review should correct only fundamental law defects. | Certiorari review denied; petitioners’ challenge to the circuit court’s decision is not a miscarriage of justice under the standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Schocoff, 725 So.2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (accord and satisfaction issues depend on explicit settlement language)
- Custer Medical Center v. United Automobile Insurance Co., So.3d (Fla. 2010) (limits second-tier certiorari to violations of clearly established law causing miscarriage of justice)
- Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995) (certiorari scope and role as backstop to correct grievous errors)
- Eder v. Yvette B. Gervey Interiors, Inc., 407 So.2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (cashing check with full payment language as an accord and satisfaction)
- Ennia Gen. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Auld, 506 So.2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (accord and satisfaction principles under Florida law)
- Mortell v. Keith, Mack, Lewis & Allison, 528 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (additional authority on accord and satisfaction)