FPCA Possible Amicus Curiae Brief Filing
Apr 4, 2007
FPCA Auto Division Members:
Below is a copy of an email and certain attachments thereto received by Katie Scott last week regarding request to ascertain whether or not there may be any interest in filing an amicus curiae brief in the referenced litigation.
Please review the email and the attachments and let me know your thoughts as to whether the FPCA is interested in participating in this litigation by filing the amicus curiae brief.
**************************
From: Hazouri, Kenneth P. [mailto:KHazouri@DBKSMN.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Katherine A. Scott
Subject: 37584 Progressive v. Rural Metro Corp : Possible Amicus Brief on Rutledge Bradford Dec. Action
Dear Katie:
How are you? I hope you are doing well and the session is going well.
Attached are Orders and a Final Judgment in a dec. action that we filed for Progressive against Rural Metro Ambulance in circuit court in Orange County (the 9th Circuit). The lawsuit asked for a declaration that Progressive is not required to respond to RMA’s (Rutledge Bradford’s) pre-suit demands for copies of the PIP Log, dec. page, and policy. We filed it in circuit court, so we would have a direct, automatic appeal to the 5th DCA.
During the case, we moved for summary judgment, which the court denied after (incorrectly) finding that there were material issues of fact. Subsequently, an appellate panel of the 9th Circuit issued an opinion equally deficient in valid legal reasoning to Zaniboni, which held that PIP insurers have a duty to respond to pre-suit demands for insurance information. (If you don’t recall, Zaniboni is the opinion issued by an appellate panel of the 18th Circuit (Seminole County) ruling that insurers must respond to pre-suit demands for insurance information based on “common sense.”) Based on this opinion, RMA moved to dismiss the case as moot, and the trial court (incorrectly) granted that motion and dismissed our dec. action. This is actually the best thing that could have happened because it gave us our automatic appeal to the 5th DCA, which is what we wanted all along.
I am filing the Notice of Appeal today and intend to expedite the Initial Brief. Because the trial court denied our MSJ, all of the arguments and issues relating to whether PIP insurers are required to respond to pre-suit demands for insurance information are properly before the 5th DCA. My understanding is that Rutledge Bradford is expanding her cottage industry of filing these ridiculous dec. actions and recovering attorneys’ fees all accross the state of Florida. She is also expanding her pre-suit requests to ask for sworn statements and many other parts of the insurers’ claim files. Even if PIP sunsets, we believe Bradford will continue her cottage industry by making pre-suite demands for insurance information relating to UM policies.
Our appeal to the 5th DCA represents the best chance that I know of to put an end to this nonsense on a statewide basis. Accordingly, can you please let your automotive-insurance clients and trade organizations know that this is going on and ask them if they would be interested in filing an Amicus Brief(s) in support of Progressive’s position? I am happy to send copies of our Complaint and MSJ to anyone who needs them. If someone is interested in filing amicus brief, please have them contact me to coordinate arguments and the timing for filing briefs.
Thanks and say “hi” to your family for me.
Ken Hazouri