Cases from cite.case.law:

USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER A A O, 259 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . court determining the proper methodology in the application of the deductible authorized under section 627.739 . . . of great public importance: WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PIP BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739 . . .

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER,, 260 So. 3d 219 (Fla. 2018)

. . . The issue presented is whether section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2014), requires the deductible to . . . Under section 627.739(2), insureds may elect a deductible of $250, $500, or $1,000. . . . Second, we review the history of section 627.739(2). . . . Analysis of Section 627.739(2) Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes, states, in relevant part: Insurers . . . History of Section 627.739(2) The history of section 627.739(2) further indicates that it currently requires . . .

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER a a o, 249 So. 3d 779 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . In those cases, we denied Progressive's petitions for writs of certiorari, concluding: Section 627.739 . . . of great public importance: WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PIP BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739 . . .

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, v. A. BLUM, M. D. P. A. a a o, 238 So. 3d 852 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 627.739, IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY THE DEDUCTIBLE TO 100% OF AN INSURED'S EXPENSES AND LOSSES . . . We rephrase the certified question as follows: PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 627.736 AND 627.739, FLORIDA STATUTES . . .

USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. J. GOGAN, M. D. a a o, 238 So. 3d 937 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . The issue in this case is whether section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2010), which mandates that an . . . Two statutes are at issue here: section 627.739, Florida Statutes (the "Deductible Statute") and section . . . THE DEDUCTIBLE STATUTE ( § 627.739 ) "A 'deductible' is 'a clause in an insurance policy that relieves . . . Section 627.739 provides: (2) Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the . . . STAT. § 627.739, IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY THE DEDUCTIBLE TO 100% OF AN INSURED'S EXPENSES AND . . . We rephrase the certified question as follows: PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 627.736 AND 627.739, FLORIDA STATUTES . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. CARE WELLNESS CENTER, LLC a a o, 240 So. 3d 22 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 627.739, IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY THE DEDUCTIBLE TO 100% OF AN INSURED'S EXPENSES AND LOSSES . . . A) to answer the certified question, which we rephrase as follows: PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 627.736 AND 627.739 . . . We must determine the proper application of a PIP policy deductible, governed by section 627.739, Florida . . . To determine the meaning of the phrase "expenses and losses," section 627.739(2) must be read along with . . . Conclusion The PIP statute allows insurers to offer policies with varying deductibles. § 627.739(2), . . .

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER A A O, 236 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . of great public importance: WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PIP BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739 . . .

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER a a o, 236 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . concerns the proper methodology to determine the application of the deductible authorized under section 627.739 . . . On the other hand, section 627.739 requires that the deductible must be applied to "100 percent of the . . . Historical Development of Section 627.739(2) The Legislature knows how to write statutory provisions . . . Indeed, the prior version of section 627.739(2) stated: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to . . . Subsection (2) of section 627.739, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 627.739 Personal injury protection . . . New Smyrna Imaging, LLC: As an initial step under s. 627.739(2), the insurer must first determine what . . . Thus, when read together, section 627.739 and section 727.736 require that a PIP deductible be applied . . . Section 627.739(2)'s references to section 627.736 necessarily include references to the reimbursement . . . Under the majority's interpretation of section 627.739(2), the deductible could be applied to a charge . . .

PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA,, 187 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Such an interpretation runs afoul of the plain language of section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2011 . . .

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA,, 187 So. 3d 898 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . However, its bill was applied to Karani’s deductible under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2011 . . . Such an interpretation runs afoul of the plain language of section 627.739(2), which sets out that “[ . . .

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, v. EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS OF CENTRAL,, 182 So. 3d 661 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . interplay between, two sections of the Florida’s PIP statute, to wit: section 627.736(4)(c) and section 627.739 . . . Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (2011), addresses insurance policy deductibles. . . . It provides, in pertinent part: 627.739. . . . the relevant statutory provisions ambiguous and, therefore, reads Florida Statute 627.736(4)(c) and 627.739 . . . Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes, states that the deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent . . .

DYE, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,, 89 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 627.739(1) (emphasis added). . . . Stat. § 627.739. . . . Id. § 627.739(3) (emphasis added). . . . . § 627.739(6). . . . Stat. § 627.739(5). . . . .

FERREIRO, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 928 So. 2d 374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 627.739, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. DIAGNOSTICS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., 921 So. 2d 23 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Furthermore, section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1994), provides in pertinent part: (2) Insurers shall . . .

AARVIG, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 287 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (D. Minn. 2003)

. . . . § 627.739(2)). . . .

RAMON, v. ARIES INSURANCE COMPANY,, 769 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Ramon’s complaint alleged that Aries violated section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1999), by making payment . . .

H. ENRIQUEZ, v. A. CLARK,, 692 So. 2d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . § 627.739(1). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and remanded. COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . . .

L. HANNAH, v. NEWKIRK,, 675 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1996)

. . . Court of Appeal certified the following question as being one of great public importance: DOES SECTION 627.739 . . . The district court reversed the trial court’s ruling and held that the plain language of section 627.739 . . . Hannah argues that the legislative purpose behind section 627.739(1) is to ensure complete insurance . . . Citing the Mansfield footnote, Hannah argues that section 627.739(1) does not require a set-off of a . . . Newkirk, on the other hand, contends that the plain meaning of section 627.739(1) necessarily mandates . . .

NEWKIRK, v. L. HANNAH,, 655 So. 2d 241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Section 627.739, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (1) The named insured may elect a deductible . . . This calculation should not be confused with the optional deductible provided for under section 627.739 . . . We disagree with appellee’s interpretation of Mansfield and hold that the plain language of section 627.739 . . . Mansfield opinion, we certify as a question of great public importance the following: DOES SECTION 627.739 . . .

MANSFIELD v. RIVERO, 620 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1993)

. . . This calculation should not be confused with the optional deductible provided for under section 627.739 . . .

RIVERO v. MANSFIELD, 584 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Finally, we are not convinced by appellees’ assertion that section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1983 . . . Subsequent amendments to section 627.739 have not altered the legislative purpose of the statute. . . .

FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. McGHEE,, 571 So. 2d 546 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . We, therefore, look to the legislative purpose behind section 627.739. . . . We have not overlooked the fact that section 627.739 has been amended after the Kwechin decision. . . .

HEIDENSTRAUCH, v. BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 564 So. 2d 581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Mari Heidenstrauch brings this appeal questioning the constitutionality of section 627.739, Florida Statutes . . .

FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SANFORD,, 558 So. 2d 542 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . In Ar-none, the supreme court held that, based on their plain language, sections 627.736(1) and 627.739 . . .

INTERNATIONAL BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ARNONE, GREAT OAKS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. KELLY,, 552 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1989)

. . . These consolidated cases present the issue of whether the deductible amounts authorized under section 627.739 . . . Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: Insurers shall offer to each applicant . . . The district court further concluded that under section 627.739(2) the deductible should be applied as . . . In the instant case, believing that this Court approved its construction of the section 627.739(2) when . . . Cowan involved the 1975 and 1976 versions of sections 627.736 and 627.739. . . .

JONES v. J. SMITH,, 547 So. 2d 201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . See § 627.739(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). Reversed and remanded for a new trial ' on damages. . . .

VERDECIA, v. AMERICAN RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, a, 543 So. 2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . protection [PIP] insured from an adverse declaratory decree which rejected the insured’s claim that Section 627.739 . . . such person’s acts or omissions who is made exempt from tort liability by ss. 627.730-627.7405.” § 627.739 . . .

INTERNATIONAL BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ARNONE,, 528 So. 2d 917 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1985) provides: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each . . . This case is controlled by the provisions of section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1977).... . . . Section 627.739(2) does not mention the terms or the limits of the policy and the legislature did not . . . It is clear that the term "benefits otherwise due" as used in section 627.739(2) applies to both the . . . However, section 627.739(2) expressly excludes application of the deductible to the funeral, burial, . . .

GOVAN, v. INTERNATIONAL BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY,, 521 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1988)

. . . proper method to compute the deductibility provisions for medical and wage-loss benefits under section 627.739 . . . A $2,000 deductible from these benefits is authorized by section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1983), . . . meaning of the phrase “benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction” contained in section 627.739 . . . Section 627.739(2) provides that the insurer will offer deductibles and “such amount [is] to be deducted . . .

REED, v. AMERICAN RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, A, 518 So. 2d 935 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . that the proper method for determining no-fault benefits in accordance with the provisions of Section 627.739 . . .

ATLAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. WOLFORT,, 506 So. 2d 99 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . The statutory sections applicable to this cause are sections 627.736 and 627.739(2), Florida Statutes . . . All disability benefits payable under this provision shall be paid not less than every 2 weeks. 627.739 . . .

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WEISS,, 21 Fla. Supp. 2d 170 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1987)

. . . The Court held that section 627.739, F.S., precluded recovery by the father on behalf of his daughter . . . There was no reason shown to the Court why section 627.739, F.S., should not apply. . . . Under section 627.739, if a policy provides personal injury protection benefits to members of the household . . .

INTERNATIONAL BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. GOVAN,, 502 So. 2d 913 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . method for determining no-fault medical and wage loss benefits in accord with the provisions of Section 627.739 . . . That provision is authorized by section 627.739(2) which provides in part: Insurers shall offer to each . . . meaning of the phrase “benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction” contained in section 627.739 . . .

VERDECIA, v. AMERICAN RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, a, 494 So. 2d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Verdecía properly stated a claim for a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of sections 627.739 . . . ’s remaining contention that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 627.739 . . .

O BRIEN Co. v. ORTIZ, 467 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . See Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1981). . . .

FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SIMS,, 464 So. 2d 251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Appealed is a summary final judgment involving the appropriate application of section 627.739(1), Florida . . . the $8,000 deductible in the policy should not apply because appellant failed to comply with section 627.739 . . . Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the insurer “shall explain to each applicant ... . . . insurance to cover all of his potential types of damages would conflict with the stated purpose of section 627.739 . . .

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. ACOSTA I., 452 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . The question before us is whether the adjective “dependent,” as used in section 627.739, Florida Statutes . . . See, e.g., § 627.739, Fla.Stat. . . . Among the amendments to section 627.739 that year, however, was the addition of “dependent.” . . . See Act of July 5, 1977, ch. 77-468, § 37, I 1977 Fla.Laws 2057, 2084 (current version at § 627.739(1 . . . See § 627.739(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . . I agree with appellant that the only construction of the term “dependent” as used in Section 627.739 . . .

BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SOSA,, 448 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . improperly entered in favor of the insured finding that the insurer had breached its duty under section 627.739 . . . The relevant statute, section 627.739, places the duty on the insurer to inquire whether the prospective . . .

Jo ECHEVARRIA, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 447 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . ” is not affected by the fact that the latter policy is subject to a deductible as provided by Sec. 627.739 . . .

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. ALVAREZ,, 443 So. 2d 279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . was insufficient to present an issue of fact as to whether Alvarez was given the advice which Section 627.739 . . .

MORA v. GENERAL INSURANCE CO., 4 Fla. Supp. 2d 133 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1983)

. . . Florida Statutes Section 627.739(1) (1979) states in part: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and . . .

INDUSTRIAL FIRE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. v. KWECHIN,, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1983)

. . . Kwechin brought suit, claiming the policy as issued violated section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977) . . . Section 627.739 provides, in pertinent part: In order to prevent duplication with other private or governmental . . . Insurance Law is in no way in conflict with the specific policy set forth in the first sentence of section 627.739 . . . Further support for this reading of section 627.739 comes from reading it in pari materia with the rest . . . Hence, section 627.739 provides for a deductible to prevent overlapping coverage. . . . uphold the statutory approval of a $4,000 optional deductible in personal injury protection policies, § 627.739 . . .

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. CEBALLOS,, 440 So. 2d 612 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Under section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975) [in effect when the policy was issued], an insured could . . . injury protection insurance with a $2,000 deductible from Lumbermens before the amendment to section 627.739 . . . Applying section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977) to contracts entered into before the statute was effective . . .

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. HERRERA, 439 So. 2d 301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . fails to satisfy the statutory duty imposed upon the insurer to explain PIP deductibles under Section 627.739 . . .

ROSELL, v. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY,, 432 So. 2d 718 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Co., 365 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); §§ 627.736(4)(d)4, 627.739, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . .

W. CHAPMAN v. P. DILLON, Jr. P. M., 415 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1982)

. . . On appeal, the district court found sections 627.736(1), 627.737, and 627.739 of the no-fault statute . . . The court concluded, however, that subsequent changes in sections 637.736, 627.737, and 627.739 rendered . . . DUE PROCESS OF LAW The district court found that sections 627.736(1), 627.737(1), and 627.739(1), Florida . . . The district court explained: The changes to sections 627.736, 627.737 and 627.739 noted above cause . . . In conclusion, we find that sections 627.-736(1), 627.737, and 627.739 of the Florida Statutes (1979) . . .

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. J. FURLAN,, 408 So. 2d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), provides that a named insured’s election of a deductible will . . .

AMERICAN RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. BENRUBE,, 407 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . In Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1979) (repealed effective July 1, 1982), the legislature expressly . . . The same logic and rule applies to Section 627.739(2) and any election to limit duplicate payments from . . . The clear impact of Section 627.739(2) is that duplicate payments are, in fact, contemplated because . . .

KWECHIN, v. INDUSTRIAL FIRE CASUALTY CO. a, 409 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . asking the trial court to declare that the deductible was offered by Industrial in violation of Section 627.739 . . . Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977), provides, in pertinent part: “In order to prevent duplication . . . Because we hold that under Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977), an insurer may not offer deductibles . . . that the insurer sold the policy to Kwechin at a reduced premium because of the deductibles, see § 627.739 . . . Of course, the amounts due Kwechin will be “the benefits otherwise due,” § 627.739(1), Fla. . . .

P. DILLON, Jr. a P. M. v. W. CHAPMAN, 404 So. 2d 354 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Sec. 627.739(1), Fla.Stat. (1971). . . . Sec. 627.739(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). . . . These changes to sections 627.736, 627.737 and 627.739 mean that these provisions no longer provide a . . . DUE PROCESS We also find that sections 627.736(1), 627.737(1), and 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1979 . . . The increase of the permissible amount deductible as provided by section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes . . .

KENILWORTH INSURANCE COMPANY, v. J. McCORMICK,, 394 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1977), requires a carrier to offer an insured a personal injury . . .

THIBODEAU, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 391 So. 2d 805 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . This case is controlled by the provisions of section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1977). . . . is contrary to public policy or understanding and expectation, the legislature should revise section 627.739 . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. CHANDLER,, 390 So. 2d 826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . . § 627.739, Fla.Stat. (1979); see Industrial Fire and Casualty Insurance Casualty Co. v. . . .

JOHNSON, v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 365 So. 2d 441 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . The trial court ruled that Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977), precluded recovery by the father . . . Affirmed. . “627.739 Personal injury protection; optional limitations; deductibles, optional methods . . .

INDUSTRIAL FIRE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. G. COWAN,, 364 So. 2d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975 and 1976), reads in part as follows: * * * * * * “Each insurer . . .