Florida Court Broadens Definition of “Total Coverage Denial” Under § 86.121
A recent Orange County Court ruling may significantly impact Florida PIP litigation by expanding how courts interpret a “total coverage denial” under Florida Statute § 86.121. In Marie V. Dorcely Louissaint v. United Automobile Insurance Company, the court held that an insurer’s denial of one or more individual medical bills can qualify as a total coverage denial of “a claim,” even if the insurer did not deny the entire accident or all benefits under the policy.
This ruling could become an important tool for insureds and providers seeking attorney’s fees after insurers reverse their position and pay claims only after suit is filed.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action after United Automobile Insurance Company denied multiple PIP claims submitted by medical providers arising from a January 13, 2024 accident. The providers timely submitted their CMS-1500 billing forms for payment.
According to the court, the insurer marked the bills as “Denied” on the Explanation of Benefits (EOBs) and advised that “no additional payments are due.”
After the lawsuit was filed and served, the insurer reversed its position and paid the previously denied claims.
The dispute then shifted to whether the plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees under Florida Statute § 86.121.
The Court’s Key Holding
The court ruled that the phrase “a claim” in § 86.121 means that a total coverage denial can apply to any individual claim or bill, not only to an entire accident or policy.
The court emphasized that the Legislature used the phrase “a claim” rather than “the claim,” showing that the statute applies whenever an insurer completely denies a particular bill or request for payment.
The ruling further explained that under Florida’s No-Fault Law, each CMS-1500 submission constitutes a separate and distinct claim.
In practical terms, this means:
- Each medical bill submitted to the insurer may be treated as its own claim.
- A full denial of a single bill may constitute a “total coverage denial.”
- The insurer does not need to deny all benefits under the policy for § 86.121 to apply.
Why This Matters
This interpretation broadens the potential application of attorney’s fees in declaratory judgment actions involving PIP disputes.
Traditionally, insurers often argued that a “total coverage denial” required a denial of the entire accident claim or a complete refusal to provide any coverage under the policy. This court rejected that argument.
The court relied on prior Florida cases recognizing that each denied medical bill can constitute a separate cause of action.
The order also relied heavily on Juan Calderon v. Geico Casualty Co., where another Florida court held that denial of a medical provider’s PIP bills constituted a total coverage denial of a claim under § 86.121.
Impact on Future PIP Litigation
This decision may encourage more declaratory judgment actions involving denied PIP bills where insurers issue complete denials on individual claims.
The ruling strengthens arguments that:
- A denied CMS-1500 bill is itself “a claim.”
- Denial of one or more bills may satisfy § 86.121.
- Post-suit payment may support attorney’s fee entitlement through confession of judgment principles.
If other courts adopt this reasoning, insurers could face increased fee exposure when they completely deny medical bills and later reverse course after litigation begins.
For providers, insureds, and attorneys handling Florida PIP disputes, this case may represent an important development in the evolving interpretation of “total coverage denial” under Florida law.
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this website is provided to users for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Although it is FL Pip Guide’s goal to provide quality information, we expressly disclaims all liability to any person who, upon reliance on the information provided in this website, takes or fails to take any particular action. Furthermore, FL PIP Guide makes no claims, promises, warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this website. As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, and laws are constantly changing, nothing provided herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.
