Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Plaintiffs responded with the contention that section 627.737 is unconstitutional as a denial of access to courts, due process, and equal protection. The trial court issued an order holding for the defendants and finding the statute constitutional. On appeal, the district court found sections 627.736(1), [1] 627.737, [2] and 627.739 [3] of *15 the no-fault statute unconstitutional....

...The district court recognized that in Lasky we held that the denial of the right to recover such damages did not violate this constitutional provision because the legislature had established a reasonable alternative. The court concluded, however, that subsequent changes in sections 637.736, 627.737, and 627.739 rendered the alternative no longer reasonable....

...Chapter 77-468, section 33, Laws of Florida, amended that section reducing the benefits to 80% of medical expenses and 80% or 60% of lost income. Other provisions in the no-fault act when Lasky was decided required PIP coverage of $5,000, section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1971), with a maximum deductible of $1,000. § 627.739, Fla....

...Thus the provisions of section 627.737 still provide a reasonable alternative to the traditional action in tort and therefore do not violate the right of access to courts guaranteed by article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution. *18 DUE PROCESS OF LAW The district court found that sections 627.736(1), 627.737(1), and 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1979), unconstitutionally denied due process in that they did not bear a reasonable relationship to permissible legislative objectives. The district court explained: The changes to sections 627.736, 627.737 and 627.739 noted above cause the 1979 no-fault act to no longer be reasonably related to several of the permissible legislative objectives noted in Lasky: (1) injured parties are able to initiate suits for expenses not payable by an insurer thereby obvi...

...r damages to recompense them, while not granting such right of recovery to those substantially less likely to incur any prolonged pain. Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Co., 296 So.2d at 19. In conclusion, we find that sections 627.736(1), 627.737, and 627.739 of the Florida Statutes (1979), do not violate the rights of access to courts, due process, or equal protection....

...If the court finds that the plaintiff will not be able to submit such evidence, then the court shall dismiss the plaintiff's claim without prejudice. (4) In any action brought against an automobile liability insurer for damages in excess of its policy limits, no claim for punitive damages shall be allowed. [3] 627.739 Personal injury protection; optional limitations; deductibles; optional methods of payment for repair work....

...Ten days later, Kwechin was injured in an automobile accident and sought compensation from the insurance company. The insurer refused to pay any medical expenses below the $4,000 deductible amount provided. Kwechin brought suit, claiming the policy as issued violated section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977) and that the insurance company was liable for medical expenses under the $4,000 threshhold, the deductible provision notwithstanding. Both parties moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The district court reversed and certified the question we now address. Section 627.739 provides, in pertinent part: In order to prevent duplication with other private or governmental insurance or benefits for senior citizens and others with access to such insurance or benefits, each insurer providing the coverage and benefits described in s....

...ith the possibility of swelling the public relief rolls. Id. at 16 (emphasis supplied). This enunciation of the general policy underlying the No-Fault Insurance Law is in no way in conflict with the specific policy set forth in the first sentence of section 627.739: "In order to prevent duplication with other ......

...The express authorization of deductibles in the enumerated situations implies the prohibition against them in all other situations according to the rule of statutory construction inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. Further support for this reading of section 627.739 comes from reading it in pari materia with the rest of Florida's No-Fault Insurance Law....

...This section provides that any amount paid from a collateral source may be set off against any amount payable from insurance coverage mandated by the act. To require payment for coverage which is redundant, therefore uncollectable, would be inequitable. Hence, section 627.739 provides for a deductible to prevent overlapping coverage....

...BOYD, Justice, dissenting. Consistent with Chapman v. Dillon, 415 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1982), and Lasky v. State Farm Insurance, 296 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1974), I would uphold the statutory approval of a $4,000 optional deductible in personal injury protection policies, § 627.739(1), Fla....

...The question presented for review is whether a liability insurance policy is governed by the law in effect at the time the policy is issued or by the law at the time a claim arises. The law in effect at the time the insurance contract was executed controls. We reverse. Under section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975) [in effect when the policy was issued], an insured could purchase deductible PIP benefits at his option....

...ance would be liable as if there were no deductible. Kwechin v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 409 So.2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Ceballos purchased personal injury protection insurance with a $2,000 deductible from Lumbermens before the amendment to section 627.739, Florida Statutes took effect....

...under that contract. See Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Fugate, 313 F.2d 788 (5th Cir.1963); Allison v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co., 222 So.2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Poole v. Travelers Ins. Co., 130 Fla. 806, 179 So. 138 (1937). Applying section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977) to contracts entered into before the statute was effective would constitute a legislative impairment of contract in violation of article I, section 10 of the Florida Constitution....

...t worker's compensation benefits are therefore determined by the law in effect at the date of the event creating a claim. There was no comparable special duty on an insurance carrier providing PIP insurance prior to the effective date of the amended section 627.739, Florida Statutes....

...Stein of Blackwell, Walker, Facell & Hoehl, Miami, for appellant. Stacey F. Soloff of Freshman, Freshman & Traitz, P.A., Miami, for appellee. EHRLICH, Chief Justice. These consolidated cases present the issue of whether the deductible amounts authorized under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1985 and 1987), reduce the statutorily mandated personal injury protection (PIP) coverage limits of $10,000....

...thout reference to the deductible and the deductible or 2) the limits of the policy — in this case $10,000. Because Arnone was pending before this Court, the Third District Court of Appeal certified the cause to this Court for immediate resolution. Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000 and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction....

...atute calls for the application of the 80% *910 reduction in order to determine the "benefits otherwise due" under the policy before application of the deductible. 502 So.2d at 914 (citations omitted). The district court further concluded that under section 627.739(2) the deductible should be applied as a threshold to recovery rather than as a means to reduce coverage....

...The policy limits in that case were $5,000 with a deductible of $4,000. [3] The Fifth District held that the insurer's liability was $1,000, the benefits otherwise due of $5,000 minus the $4,000 deductible. In the instant case, believing that this Court approved its construction of the section 627.739(2) when we approved its decision in Govan and disapproved Thibodeau and Cowan, the district court held that the term "benefits otherwise due" relates to the "`Required Benefits' mandated by section 627.736 et seq....

...o a deductible, but the insurer shall be liable for such benefits up to the $10,000 policy limits mandated by the PIP statute. In Govan, the sole issue with which we were presented was the interrelationship of the deductible amounts authorized under section 627.739(2) and the coinsurance percentages by which eligible benefits under section 627.736(1) are to be reduced....

...cation of the coinsurance percentages exceeds the policy limits then *911 the "benefits otherwise due" are the policy limits. The Department has approved PIP policies, such as those at issue, which provide that the deductible amount authorized under section 627.739(2) is to be deducted from the lesser of the recoverable lost wages and medical expenses under section 627.736(1) or the policy limits....

...lter the point at which an insurance company's obligation to pay will ripen. American Nurses Assoc. v. Passaic General Hosp., 98 N.J. 83, 88-90, 484 A.2d 670, 673 (1984). The district court below reasoned that the deductible amounts authorized under section 627.739(2) should be utilized "as a threshold to recovery and not as a means to reduce coverage." Arnone, 528 So.2d at 919....

...[5] In construing the term "benefits otherwise due," the district court below overlooked the fact that "required benefits" are eligible benefits set forth in section 627.736(1) "to a limit of $10,000." Based on the plain language of sections 627.736(1) and 627.739(2), we hold that these provisions provide for the authorized deductible amounts to be subtracted from the lesser of the eligible benefits after application of the coinsurance percentages of sections 627.736(1)(a) and (b) or the statutorily mandated coverage limit of $10,000....

...If the total amount of such loss and expense exceeds such deductible, the total limit of benefits the Company is obligated to pay shall be the difference between such deductible amount and the applicable limit of the Company's liability. (Emphasis added.) [2] Sections 627.736, 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975 and Supp....

...[3] The 1977 personal injury protection scheme at issue in Thibodeau v. Allstate Insurance Co., 391 So.2d 805 (Fla. 1980), disapproved, Govan v. International Bankers Insurance Co., 521 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1988), provided for a maximum deductible of $4,000 and coverage up a limit of $5,000. §§ 627.736(1), 627.739(1), Fla. Stat. (1977). [4] The coinsurance percentages became part of Florida's PIP scheme in September 1977. Ch. 77-468, § 33, Laws of Fla. Cowan involved the 1975 and 1976 versions of sections 627.736 and 627.739....

...Although the 1977 scheme was employed in Thibodeau, the relationship between the deductible and the coinsurance percentages was not at issue. [5] Benefits for funeral and burial expenses which are provided for in section 627.736(1)(c) are exempt from application of the deductible, pursuant to section 627.739(2).

...medical expenses from their own PIP carrier. Consequently, under this statutory scheme, the Mansfields are obligated to pay the remaining 20% of these expenses. This calculation should not be confused with the optional deductible provided for under section 627.739, which allows an insured to elect a $250, $500, $1,000, or $2,000 deductible from the benefits the insured is entitled to receive from the insured's PIP carrier.

...Thereafter, Ramon filed the instant action styled "class representation," claiming that Aries had erroneously applied the insured's deductible to him and that he was the representative of a class of persons similarly situated. Ramon's complaint alleged that Aries violated section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1999), by making payment of medical bills under the provisions of its PIP coverage but applying the deductible to the claim even though the claimant was not the named insured or a dependent relative residing in the same household or a pedestrian....

...." Another change which diminishes from the adequacy of the 1979 no-fault act is the increase of the allowable deductibles. Under the 1972 act, the required personal injury protection (PIP) coverage was $5,000.00 with a maximum deductible of $1,000.00. Sec. 627.739(1), Fla. Stat. (1971). The 1979 no-fault act requires PIP coverage of $10,000.00 but the maximum allowable deductible is $8,000.00. Sec. 627.739(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). This change means that the 1979 act allows for decreased PIP coverage. These changes to sections 627.736, 627.737 and 627.739 mean that these provisions no longer provide a reasonable alternative for redress of injuries suffered in automobile accidents....

...We find that the Legislature has not shown any public necessity different from that which was present when the Lasky court considered the 1972 no-fault act. The provisions upheld in Lasky thereby constitute an alternative method for meeting such necessity. DUE PROCESS We also find that sections 627.736(1), 627.737(1), and 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1979), cause plaintiffs' due process rights to be violated and are thus unconstitutional....

...ich was supposedly unduly costly; and (6) correcting the situation in which the pressing necessity of paying medical bills often forced an injured party to accept an unduly small settlement for his claim. The changes to sections 627.736, 627.737 and 627.739 noted above cause the 1979 no-fault act to no longer be reasonably related to several of the permissible legislative objectives noted in Lasky : (1) injured parties are able to initiate suits for expenses not payable by an insurer thereby obv...

...provisions precluding full compensation for medical expenses and lost income but enabling suit for part of these damages establishes a slow and inefficient tort system for reparations. The increase of the permissible amount deductible as provided by section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1979), is also discriminatory and oppressive....

...We must follow this declaration of our supreme court in Lasky supporting the conclusion that the threshold provisions of the 1979 no-fault act do not deny plaintiffs their right to equal protection. Accordingly, the order of the trial court which found sections 627.737 and 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), constitutional, granting defendants' summary judgment *359 and in the alternative granting defendants' motion to dismiss is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings....

...Matthews, 498 So.2d 421, 422 (Fla. 1986). The record establishes that the Riveros' insurance carrier has refused to provide them any benefits; no rule requires them to recover from the carrier. Finally, we are not convinced by appellees' assertion that section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1983), requires the subtraction of the amount of the Riveros' deductible from the jury award. Section 627.739(1), contains no mandate that a tortfeasor's obligation to pay damages be reduced by the amount of the victim's deductible....

...from an initial organic injury." Jones, 547 So.2d at 201. Although in some cases, permanent pain may constitute permanent injury, the factfinder must base its decision as to permanence on all the testimony and evidence. [2] Subsequent amendments to section 627.739 have not altered the legislative purpose of the statute....

...Reis of Sparkman, Robb, Nelson & Mason, Miami, for Respondent. HARDING, Justice. We have for review Newkirk v. Hannah, 655 So.2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question as being one of great public importance: DOES SECTION 627.739(1), FLORIDA STATUTES, MANDATE THAT A TRIAL COURT SET OFF THE AMOUNT OF THE INJURED PARTY'S ELECTED PIP DEDUCTIBLE AND THE AMOUNT OF BENEFITS PAID BY *113 THE PIP CARRIER FROM A VERDICT AGAINST A TORTFEASOR? Id....

...A judgment was entered against Newkirk in the amount of $3,146.28. Newkirk appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal claiming that the trial court erred in failing to set off the amount of Hannah's PIP deductible from the jury verdict pursuant to section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1989). [1] The district court reversed the trial court's ruling and held that the plain language of section 627.739(1) mandates that a trial court, in addition to reducing the verdict by the amount of benefits paid by the PIP carrier, set off the amount of the injured party's elected PIP deductible from the verdict against the tortfeasor....

...However, in light of a footnote in this Court's opinion in Mansfield v. Rivero, 620 So.2d 987, 990 n. 2 (Fla.1993), [2] the district court certified the above question as one of great public importance. Newkirk, 655 So.2d at 242. Hannah argues that the legislative purpose behind section 627.739(1) is to ensure complete insurance coverage for injuries, not to deprive a successful plaintiff of damages awarded by a jury. Citing the Mansfield footnote, Hannah argues that section 627.739(1) does not require a set-off of a PIP deductible from a jury verdict. Hannah further states that holding otherwise would essentially deem the injured party self-insured for the amount of his deductible. Newkirk, on the other hand, contends that the plain meaning of section 627.739(1) necessarily mandates that a plaintiff's PIP deductible be subtracted from a jury award....

...v. Sims, 464 So.2d 251, 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). She further notes that in electing a deductible an insured party pays a lower insurance premium and becomes a self-insurer as to that deductible. We agree with both the district court and Newkirk that section 627.739(1) precludes a successful plaintiff from recovering the PIP deductible from a tortfeasor. This Court has consistently held that unambiguous statutory language must be accorded its plain meaning. *114 See Carson v. Miller, 370 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 1979). Section 627.739(1) provides that "[a]ny person electing a deductible or modified coverage ......

...627.730-627.7405." (Emphasis added). It follows that where a plaintiff has elected a PIP deductible, it must be subtracted from the jury verdict against a tortfeasor. See generally Verdecia v. American Risk Assurance Co., 543 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding that section 627.739(1), the statutory provision which eliminates the tort remedy against the tortfeasor for the PIP deductible, is constitutional), review denied, 551 So.2d 464 (Fla.1989)....

...ding possibly incomplete coverage. Chapman, 415 So.2d at 18. We find Hannah's reliance on the Mansfield footnote to be misplaced for several reasons. First, our opinion quashed the district court's decision, which included the same interpretation of section 627.739(1) that Hannah asserts here, namely that the statute does not require that a tortfeasor's obligation to pay damages be reduced by the amount of the victim's PIP deductible. See Rivero v. Mansfield, 584 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), quashed, 620 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1993). Second, section 627.739(1) was not the basis for our decision in Mansfield, but was cited in the footnote in order to distinguish it from the calculations made in accordance with sections 627.736(1) and section 627.737(1). Thus, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and hold that section 627.739(1) requires that the amount awarded to a plaintiff be reduced by the plaintiff's elected PIP deductible....

...a motion within thirty days after entry of judgment or after voluntary or involuntary dismissal. A plain reading of the statute does not provide for attorney fees on appeal, and the Court should not write such a provision into the statute. NOTES [1] Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: The named insured may elect a deductible to apply to the named insured alone or to the named insured and dependent relatives residing in the same household, but may not elect a deductible to apply to any other person covered under the policy....

...cent that the tortfeasor was obligated to pay, in accordance with sections 627.737(1) and 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1983). The footnote also provided that "[t]his calculation should not be confused with the optional deductible provided for under section 627.739." Id....

...This is a petition to review International Bankers Insurance Co. v. Govan, 502 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), in which the district court of appeal determined the proper method to compute the deductibility provisions for medical and wage-loss benefits under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...nsurance policy which covered eighty percent of his medical expenses up to the maximum amount of $10,000 for any single accident, as mandated by section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). A $2,000 deductible from these benefits is authorized by section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000 and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction....

...The district court reversed and held that the eighty percent calculation should be made before the deductible is subtracted. It explained: The parties agree that the answer to the issue lies in the meaning of the phrase "benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction" contained in section 627.739(2)....

...o provide the maximum coverage, because the purpose of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Act is to broaden insurance coverage. We reject this contention because we disagree with petitioner's claim that the statutory language is vague and ambiguous. Section 627.739(2) provides that the insurer will offer deductibles and "such amount [is] to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due......

...*26 We conclude that Diagnostics has no claim for damages and, therefore, no standing to pursue a class action. See Neighborhood Health, 913 So.2d at 706. Accordingly, we reverse the class certification order. NOTES [1] It is undisputed that the applicable deductible in this case was $2,000. Furthermore, section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1994), provides in pertinent part: (2) Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000, and $2,000, such amou...

...injured. When Lumbermens refused to pay Alvarez for any damages below the deductible amount, he sued, claiming, inter alia, that the personal injury protection deductible was invalid because the insurer failed to satisfy the duty imposed upon it by Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), to inform Alvarez that he could not avail himself of the deductible unless he had other applicable coverage....

...stated that he has no collateral insurance coverage. The trial court entered summary judgment for Alvarez, implicitly determining that Almerico's testimony was insufficient to present an issue of fact as to whether Alvarez was given the advice which Section 627.739 requires, since Almerico was unable to state that the standard practice and procedure of the agency was followed in the particular instance when Alvarez applied for insurance....

...xceeded the maximum amount of coverage. After hearing on the motion, the trial court held that, notwithstanding the deductible provision, the plaintiff was entitled to the full $5,000.00 because of the amount of her damages. We disagree and reverse. Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975 and 1976), reads in part as follows: * * * * * * "Each insurer * * * shall, at the election of the owner, issue a policy endorsement, * * * which endorsement shall provide that there shall be deducted from pers...

...be the difference between such deductible amount and the applicable limit of the Company's liability. (Emphasis supplied). Allstate paid $1,000 on Sandra's behalf and denied further liability. We affirm. This case is controlled by the provisions of section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...However based on the record before us we are unable to conclude an ambiguity exists because the policy explanation of the "deductible" tracks the insurance statute clearly and precisely. If this result is contrary to public policy or understanding and expectation, the legislature should revise section 627.739(1)....

...Shaw, Jr., of Jack W. Shaw, Jr., P.A., Jacksonville, for amicus curiae-Defense Lawyers Association. ANSTEAD, Judge. At issue in this appeal is the proper method for determining no-fault medical and wage loss benefits in accord with the provisions of Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...Pursuant to the provisions of section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), International Bankers insured Govan for 80% of his medical expenses up to a maximum amount of $10,000.00 for any single accident. However, the policy also contains a $2,000.00 "deductible" provision. That provision is authorized by section 627.739(2) which provides in part: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000, and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction....

...We hold that the 80% calculation should be made before the deductible is subtracted and reverse the summary final judgment holding to the contrary. *914 The parties agree that the answer to the issue lies in the meaning of the phrase "benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction" contained in section 627.739(2)....

...We have been unable to find any case in Florida which discusses at what point the deductible should be applied in a situation where a person is entitled to both PIP benefits and workers' compensation benefits. We, therefore, look to the legislative purpose behind section 627.739....

...r, it would be simpler if the primary responsibility for the payment of benefits rested with the PIP carrier to the extent of that coverage. That method would eliminate the need for subsequent reimbursements. [2] We have not overlooked the fact that section 627.739 has been amended after the Kwechin decision....

...For the reasons that follow, we grant Mercury’s petition and' quash the circuit court’s order. This proceeding involves the interpretation of, and interplay between, two sections of the Florida’s PIP statute, to wit: section 627.736(4)(c) and section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2011)....

...ian or dentist who provided emergency services and care or who provided hospital inpatient care to the extent that the personal injury protection benefits not held in reserve are insufficient to pay the claim ... § 627.736(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2011). Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (2011), addresses insurance policy deductibles. It provides, in pertinent part: 627.739....

...nsurer from applying such a bill to the insured’s deductible.- -The county court ruled in favor of EPCF holding, in pertinent part: The Court finds the relevant statutory provisions ambiguous and, therefore, reads Florida Statute 627.736(4)(c) and 627.739(2) in pari material (sic)....

...Where the' language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must' be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Zuckerman v. Alter, 615 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla.1993). Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, states that there is a mandatory reserve of $5,000 that should be kept for payment of bills from emergency providers. Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes, states that the deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses that are listed in section 627.736....

...ablished principles of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. We agree. We hold that the circuit court’s order departed from the essential requirements of the law because the court incorrectly interpreted and applied sections 627.736(4)(c) and 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2011)....

...riod, says nothing about the impact (if any) of a contracted-for deductible. See Anderson v. State, 87 So.3d 774, 777 (Fla.2012) (“A court primarily discerns legislative intent by looking to the plain text of the relevant statute.”). Conversely, section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2011), speaks specifically to the impact of the deductible provisions of section 627.736": The deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s....

...After the deductible is met, each insured is eligible to receive up to $10,000 in total benefits described in s. 627.736(1). However, this subsection shall not be applied to reduce the amount of any benefits received in accordance with s. 627.736(l)(c). The plain language of section 627.739(2) thus dictates that any, contracted-for deductible must be applied “to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s....

...In effect, the insured agrees to “self-insure” for the deductible amount. Where an accident occurs, the insured (not the insurer) becomes responsible for payment, of claims that are otherwise impacted by the • deductible amount in the insurance policy. The fact that' section 627.739(2) specifically provides that a deductible “shall not be applied to reduce the amount of any benefits received in accordance with s....

...an issue. See Section 316.066(4), Florida Statutes (1981). As to the third point, we find under the present scheme of Florida no-fault insurance code that it was error to permit evidence of the medical costs which are within the PIP definitions. See Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...We grant the motion for rehearing and the motion to certify. We withdraw the previous opinion and substitute the following in its stead. This certiorari proceeding concerns the proper methodology to determine the application of the deductible authorized under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2014), when personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits are sought by an insured. The decision we review (rendered by the circuit court in its appellate capacity) provides that, when calculating the amount of PIP benefits due to the insured, section 627.739(2) requires the deductible to be subtracted from the total medical care charges before applying the statutory reimbursement limitations provided in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2014)....

...Weekly Supp. 707a 2 medical expenses and 60% reimbursement limitation for disability expenses and losses) for calculating how much of the expenses and losses will be paid as benefits. On the other hand, section 627.739 requires that the deductible must be applied to “100 percent of the expenses and losses.” In other words, the 80% and 60% methodologies in section 627.736(1) are intended to limit reimbursements in order to establish benefits. They are not intended to describe the application of the deductible under the 100% methodology provided in section 627.739(2). Specifically, Progressive contends that the reimbursement limitations contained in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b....

...should be applied to reduce the expenses and losses and that the deductible should be subtracted from that reduced amount to arrive at the benefit amount owed to the insured. We disagree because, using that methodology, the deductible is not being applied toward 100% of the expenses and losses as required by section 627.739(2)....

...affirmative defenses, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The county court entered a final summary judgment in favor of Florida Hospital in the amount of $200, plus interest, thus adopting Florida Hospital’s argument that the plain language of section 627.739(2) required Progressive to subtract Parent’s deductible from Florida Hospital’s total charges before applying section 627.736(5)(a)1.b.’s reimbursement limitation....

...accorded procedural due process and (2) applied the correct law. Dep’t of High. Saf. & Motor Veh. v. Alliston, 813 So. 2d 141, 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Here, the pertinent inquiry is whether the circuit court applied the correct law when interpreting sections 627.736(5)(a)1.b. and 627.739(2) to determine whether the county court utilized the correct methodology to apply the deductible....

...enses and losses, abandoned the previous methodology of subtracting the deductible from the benefits due under the policy after applying the reimbursement limitations. Despite this legislative change in 2003, [The bill] [a]mends s. 627.739, F.S., relating to PIP deductibles, to change the calculation of the PIP deductible to require that it must be applied to 100 percent of medical expenses, rather than to the current 80 percent of expenses that PIP pays....

...PIP pays 80 percent X $3,000 = $2,400. Fla. S. Comm. on Banking & Ins., CS for SB 32-A (2003) Staff Analysis 16 (May 15, 2003). We have not relied on this report in our analysis. We note it here because it confirms our conclusion about how the deductible should be applied under section 627.739(2)....

...After the deductible is met, each insured is eligible to receive up to $10,000 in total benefits described in s. 627.736(1). However, this subsection shall not be applied to reduce the amount of any benefits received in accordance with s. 627.736(1)(c). § 627.739(2), Fla....

...he Florida Supreme Court. I otherwise respectfully dissent. As the circuit court for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit observed in Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. New Smyrna Imaging, LLC: As an initial step under s. 627.739(2), the insurer must first determine what are the “expenses and losses described in s. 627.736,” in order to apply the deductible to 100% of those expenses and losses....

...ribed as or used in the context of reasonable expenses or expenses “covered by the policy.” Section 627.736(1)(a), (1)(b), & (6)(b), Fla. Stat. (footnote omitted). Thus, when read together, section 627.739 and section 727.736 require that a PIP deductible be applied to 100% of the reasonable and necessary medical expenses, or those expenses covered by the policy. 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 708a (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. Jan. 12, 2015). Section 627.739(2)’s references to section 627.736 necessarily include references to the reimbursement limitation of section 627.736(5)(a)1.b....

...I disagree. Medical expenses covered under PIP are limited to those services and expenses which are reasonable and necessary. See Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Servs. Inc., 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2013). Under the majority’s interpretation of section 627.739(2), the deductible could be applied to a charge which is unreasonably high and thus not covered by PIP....

...“The notion that a deductible 18  We believe that application of the optional reimbursement limitations to establish a reduced amount of expenses and losses from which the deductible amount is subtracted would render meaningless the requirement in section 627.739(2) that “[t]he deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses.” See Borden v....

...a basic rule of statutory construction that ‘the Legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions, and courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.’”). Historical Development of Section 627.739(2) The Legislature knows how to write statutory provisions that would require the deductible amount to be subtracted from the benefits due under the policy, which are determined after the reimbursement limitations are applied. Indeed, the prior version of section 627.739(2) stated: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000, and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction. However, this subsection shall not be applied to reduce the amount of any benefits received in accordance with s. 627.736(1)(c). § 627.739(2), Fla....

...Therefore, under this prior version of the statute, the deductible was required to be satisfied from the amount that was actually payable out of the policy benefits. In Govan, the Florida Supreme Court lamented the methodology required by the prior version of section 627.739(2) and invited the Legislature to address the issue: While we may disagree with the legislative policy underlying the statute, we have no authority to change the clear intent and purpose of a...

...amended the statute to make it consistent with the statutory interpretation presented here by the petitioner. House Bill 1015. 521 So. 2d at 1088. In response to Govan and Arnone, the Florida Legislature in 2003 amended section 627.739(2) to require: (2) ....

...The deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s. 627.736. After the deductible is met, each insured is eligible to receive up to $10,000 in total benefits described in s. 627.736(1). § 627.739(2), Fla....

...enses and losses, abandoned the previous methodology of subtracting the deductible from the benefits due under the policy after applying the reimbursement limitations. Despite this legislative change in 2003, [The bill] [a]mends s. 627.739, F.S., relating to PIP deductibles, to change the calculation of the PIP deductible to require that it must be applied to 100 percent of medical expenses, rather than to the current 80 percent of expenses that PIP pays....

...PIP pays 80 percent X $3,000 = $2,400. Fla. S. Comm. on Banking & Ins., CS for SB 32-A (2003) Staff Analysis 16 (May 15, 2003). We have not relied on this report in our analysis. We note it here because it confirms our conclusion about how the deductible should be applied under section 627.739(2)....

...1st DCA 2012) (“Our decision does not rely on staff analyses. . . . The staff analyses support the position advocated here by G.G., not FDLE.”). 10 Progressive and the dissent argue that the methodology advanced in the previous version of section 627.739 (as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in Govani and Arnone) should continue to be applied by the courts under the current version of the statute....

...2002); Macchione v. State, 123 So. 3d 114, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). The court in Govan noted that during the 1987 legislative session, the Legislature failed to enact a bill that would change the methodology described in the prior version of section 627.739(2). Similarly, it should be noted here that during the 2016 legislative session, the Florida Legislature failed to enact a proposed bill that would amend section 627.739(2) to incorporate the methodology of subtracting the deductible amount after the reimbursement limitations are used to determine the benefits due under the policy. Specifically, the proposed amendment stated: Section 5. Subsection (2) of section 627.739, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 627.739 Personal injury protection; optional limitations; deductibles.— (2) Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, and $1,000....

...627.736(1)(c). Fla. SB 1036 (2016) (words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions); see also Fla. HB 659 (2016) (same). This amendment incorporates the same methodology Progressive and the dissent argue should apply under the current version of section 627.739(2)....

...to consider legislation enacted more than ten years after the original act as a clarification of original intent . . . .”); Macchione, 123 So. 3d at 117. Moreover, the title to the bill incorporating the failed amendment states: An act relating to automobile insurance; . . . amending s. 627.739, F.S.,; revising applicability; providing a limitation to an amount of expenses and losses applicable to a deductible related to personal injury protection benefits under a certain condition ....

...argument for several reasons. First, it overlooks the distinctions between a deductible and a statutory reimbursement limitation, and it disregards the reason the Legislature approved the applicable provisions. The deductible provisions of section 627.739(2) were enacted to allow for reductions in the amount of the premiums charged by the insurer and to determine the amount of risk through self-insurance the insured has agreed to assume. See Mercury Ins....

...result, and we believe they are the better reasoned decisions. Conclusion We conclude that application of the methodology advanced by Progressive and the dissent would require that we revert to the provisions of section 627.739(2) that were in effect before the 2003 amendment. It is not for this court to pick and choose which version of the statute to apply; we must apply the law as it currently exists. Section 627.739(2) currently requires that the deductible be applied to 100% of the expenses and losses, and that is the version the circuit court properly applied....

...Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari. We certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance: WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PIP BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRE THAT THE DEDUCTIBLE BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CHARGES BEFORE APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736(5)...

...he Florida Supreme Court. I otherwise respectfully dissent. As the circuit court for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit observed in Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. New Smyrna Imaging, LLC: As an initial step under s. 627.739(2), the insurer must first determine what are the “expenses and losses described in s. 627.736,” in order to apply the deductible to 100% of those expenses and losses....

...ribed as or used in the context of reasonable expenses or expenses “covered by the policy.” Section 627.736(1)(a), (1)(b), & (6)(b), Fla. Stat. (footnote omitted). Thus, when read together, section 627.739 and section 727.736 require that a PIP deductible be applied to 100% of the reasonable and necessary medical expenses, or those expenses covered by the policy. 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 708a (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. Jan. 12, 2015). Section 627.739(2)’s references to section 627.736 necessarily include references to the reimbursement limitation of section 627.736(5)(a)1.b....

...I disagree. Medical expenses covered under PIP are limited to those services and expenses which are reasonable and necessary. See Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Servs. Inc., 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2013). Under the majority’s interpretation of section 627.739(2), the deductible could be applied to a charge which is unreasonably high and thus not covered by PIP....

...As subsequently amended, Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), the statute still limits credits to benefits received under the workers' compensation law or Medicaid. We do not view the omission of payments made by Medicare as mere oversight. In Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1979) (repealed effective July 1, 1982), the legislature expressly provides that as to the named insured and dependent relatives residing in the same household, the named insured could elect, in exchange for premium modifications, that benefits payable under Medicare, 42 U.S.C.A....

...ured does not apply to Benrube who is neither the named insured nor the dependent relative living in the insured's household, and, therefore, Benrube had available to her the full $10,000.00 of the policy benefits. The same logic and rule applies to Section 627.739(2) and any election to limit duplicate payments from Medicare; duplicate payments may not be prohibited with respect to others than the insured and dependent relatives residing in his household. The clear impact of Section 627.739(2) is that duplicate payments are, in fact, contemplated because the insurance company is the primary insurer....

...Appellant contends the trial court erred when it failed to limit its liability for personal injury protection benefits to the sum of $8,000. We disagree and affirm on the authority of Govan v. International Bankers Insurance Company, 521 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1988). Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1985) provides: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000 and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction....

...The policy contained a provision identical to that contained in the policy issued to appellee. The district court rejected appellant's argument that the policy's statement of "$5,000 coverage" was ambiguous and misleading and affirmed an award of $1,000 to the insured. This case is controlled by the provisions of section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1977)......

...ecisions in Cowan and Thibodeau to the extent of their conflict with this court's decision. The only apparent conflict between Cowan, Thibodeau and Govan is the application of the deductible to reduce coverage rather than as a threshold to recovery. Section 627.739(2) does not mention the terms or the limits of the policy and the legislature did not intend to permit a reduction of coverage when it permitted the offering of a deductible....

...3d DCA 1981), approved, 447 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 1983). Therefore we hold the term "benefits otherwise due" means the total amount of "Required Benefits" provided by section 627.736(1) et seq. payable for a given claim. The amount of such benefits may be subject to a deductible as provided by section 627.739, but the insurance company shall be liable for such expense up to $10,000....

...ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The record does not reveal the total amount of appellee's expenses. However, appellant does not challenge the trial court's award on this basis. [2] It is clear that the term "benefits otherwise due" as used in section 627.739(2) applies to both the medical benefits coverage and the disability benefits coverage provided in the personal injury protection statute. However, section 627.739(2) expressly excludes application of the deductible to the funeral, burial, or cremation benefits provided by section 627.736(1)(c).

the insurer to explain PIP deductibles under Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which reads: “(1)

PER CURIAM. Since plaintiff/appellant Marcelino Verdecía properly stated a claim for a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of sections 627.739, 627.730-.7405, Florida Statutes (1983), as applied to him, we find the trial court erred in ordering the dismissal of plaintiff’s second amended complaint with prejudice on the ground that plaintiff was wrong on the merits, i.e., that the aforementioned statutes were constitutional....

...ismissal is sustainable on the ground that plaintiff’s second amended complaint was untimely filed. We find this contention to be without merit. Defendant’s remaining contention that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 627.739 we leave for the trial court to consider upon remand....

...Phillips and Chris Tadros, of Phillips Tadros, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, as Amicus Curiae Floridians for Fair Insurance, Inc. SAWAYA, J. This certiorari proceeding concerns the proper methodology to determine the application of the deductible authorized under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2014), when personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits are sought by an insured. The decision we review (rendered by the circuit court in its appellate capacity) provides that, when calculating the amount of PIP benefits due to the insured, section 627.739(2) requires the deductible to be subtracted from the total medical care charges before applying the statutory reimbursement limitations provided in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2014)....

...should be applied to reduce the expenses and losses and that the deductible should be subtracted from that reduced amount to arrive at the benefit amount owed to the insured. We disagree because, using that methodology, the deductible is not being applied toward 100% of the expenses and losses as required by section 627.739(2)....

...2d 734, 738 (Fla. 2002). We believe that application of the optional reimbursement limitations to establish a reduced amount of expenses and losses from which the deductible amount is subtracted would render meaningless the requirement in section 627.739(2) that “[t]he deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses.” See Borden v....

...methodology of subtracting the deductible from the benefits due under the policy after applying the reimbursement limitations. Despite this legislative change in 2003, Progressive and the dissent argue that the methodology advanced in the previous version of section 627.739 (as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in Govani and Arnone) should continue to be applied by the courts under the current version of the statute....

...hange Fla. S. Comm. on Banking & Ins., CS for SB 32-A (2003) Staff Analysis 16 (May 15, 2003). We have not relied on this report in our analysis. We note it here because it confirms our conclusion about how the deductible should be applied under section 627.739(2)....

...0 Fla. SB 1036 (2016) (words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions); see also Fla. HB 659 (2016) (same). This amendment incorporates the same methodology Progressive and the dissent argue should apply under the current version of section 627.739(2)....

...The Legislature did not adopt this amendment. The dissent labels this failed amendment a clarification of the current statute. If the failed amendment is a clarification, the refusal of the Legislature to adopt it is a declaration that it does not accurately express the meaning of the current version of section 627.739(2) and indicates a rejection of the argument made by Progressive and the dissent....

...to consider legislation enacted more than ten years after the original act as a clarification of original intent . . . .”); Macchione, 123 So. 3d at 117. Moreover, the title to the bill incorporating the failed amendment states: An act relating to automobile insurance; . . . amending s. 627.739, F.S.,; revising applicability; providing a limitation to an amount of expenses and losses applicable to a deductible related to personal injury protection benefits under a certain condition ....

...should be applied to reduce the expenses and losses and that the deductible should be subtracted from that reduced amount to arrive at the benefit amount owed to the insured. We disagree because, using that methodology, the deductible is not being applied toward 100% of the expenses and losses as required by section 627.739(2)....

...2d 734, 738 (Fla. 2002). We believe that application of the optional reimbursement limitations to establish a reduced amount of expenses and losses from which the deductible amount is subtracted would render meaningless the requirement in section 627.739(2) that “[t]he deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses.” See Borden v....

...a basic rule of statutory construction that ‘the Legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions, and courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.’”). 7  Historical Development of Section 627.739(2) The Legislature knows how to write statutory provisions that would require the deductible amount to be subtracted from the benefits due under the policy, which are determined after the reimbursement limitations are applied. Indeed, the prior version of section 627.739(2) stated: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000, and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction. However, this subsection shall not be applied to reduce the amount of any benefits received in accordance with s. 627.736(1)(c). § 627.739(2), Fla....

...Therefore, under this prior version of the statute, the deductible was required to be satisfied from the amount that was actually payable out of the policy benefits. 8  In Govan, the Florida Supreme Court lamented the methodology required by the prior version of section 627.739(2) and invited the Legislature to address the issue: While we may disagree with the legislative policy underlying the statute, we have no authority to change the clear intent and purpose of a st...

...e amended the statute to make it consistent with the statutory interpretation presented here by the petitioner. House Bill 1015. 521 So. 2d at 1088. In response to Govan and Arnone, the Florida Legislature in 2003 amended section 627.739(2) to require: (2) ....

...The deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s. 627.736. After the deductible is met, each insured is eligible to receive up to $10,000 in total benefits described in s. 627.736(1). § 627.739(2), Fla....

...that the intent of the 2003 amendments was to apply the deductible before reducing the medical expenses pursuant to the statutory reimbursement limitations. Specifically, the pertinent part of the staff analysis provides: [The bill] [a]mends s. 627.739, F.S., relating to PIP deductibles, to change the calculation of the PIP deductible to require that it must be applied to 100 percent of medical expenses, rather than to the current 80 percent of expenses that PIP pays....

...methodology of subtracting the deductible from the benefits due under the policy after applying the reimbursement limitations. Despite this legislative change in 2003, Progressive and the dissent argue that the methodology advanced in the previous version of section 627.739 (as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in Govani and Arnone) should continue to be applied by the courts under the current version of the statute....

...hange Fla. S. Comm. on Banking & Ins., CS for SB 32-A (2003) Staff Analysis 16 (May 15, 2003). We have not relied on this report in our analysis. We note it here because it confirms our conclusion about how the deductible should be applied under section 627.739(2)....

...2002); Macchione v. State, 123 So. 3d 114, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). The court in Govan noted that during the 1987 legislative session, the Legislature failed to enact a bill that would change the methodology described in the prior version of section 627.739(2). Similarly, it should be noted here that during the 2016 legislative session, the Florida Legislature failed to enact a proposed bill that would amend section 627.739(2) to incorporate the methodology of subtracting the deductible amount after the reimbursement limitations are used to determine the benefits due under the policy. Specifically, the proposed amendment stated: Section 5. Subsection (2) of section 627.739, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 627.739 Personal injury protection; optional limitations; deductibles.— (2) Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, and $1,000....

...627.736(1)(c). 11 Fla. SB 1036 (2016) (words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions); see also Fla. HB 659 (2016) (same). This amendment incorporates the same methodology Progressive and the dissent argue should apply under the current version of section 627.739(2)....

...The Legislature did not adopt this amendment. The dissent labels this failed amendment a clarification of the current statute. If the failed amendment is a clarification, the refusal of the Legislature to adopt it is a declaration that it does not accurately express the meaning of the current version of section 627.739(2) and indicates a rejection of the argument made by Progressive and the dissent....

...to consider legislation enacted more than ten years after the original act as a clarification of original intent . . . .”); Macchione, 123 So. 3d at 117. Moreover, the title to the bill incorporating the failed amendment states: An act relating to automobile insurance; . . . amending s. 627.739, F.S.,; revising applicability; providing a limitation to an amount of expenses and losses applicable to a deductible related to personal injury protection benefits under a certain condition ....

...In any event, we reject this argument for several reasons. First, it overlooks the distinctions between a deductible and a statutory reimbursement limitation, and it disregards the reason the Legislature approved the applicable provisions. The deductible provisions of section 627.739(2) were enacted to allow for reductions in the amount of the premiums charged by the insurer and to determine the amount of risk through self-insurance the insured has agreed to assume. See Mercury Ins....

...result, and we believe they are the better reasoned decisions. Conclusion We conclude that application of the methodology advanced by Progressive and the dissent would require that we revert to the provisions of section 627.739(2) that were in effect before the 2003 amendment. It is not for this court to pick and choose which version of the statute to apply; we must apply the law as it currently exists. Section 627.739(2) currently requires that the deductible be applied to 100% of the expenses and losses, and that is the version the circuit court properly applied....

...5D16-2333 I respectfully dissent. As the circuit court for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit observed in Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Co. v. New Smyrna Imaging, LLC: As an initial step under s. 627.739(2), the insurer must first determine what are the “expenses and losses described in s. 627.736,” in order to apply the deductible to 100% of those expenses and losses....

...ribed as or used in the context of reasonable expenses or expenses “covered by the policy.” Section 627.736(1)(a), (1)(b), & (6)(b), Fla. Stat. (footnote omitted). Thus, when read together, section 627.739 and section 727.736 require that a PIP deductible be applied to 100% of the reasonable and necessary medical expenses, or those expenses covered by the policy. 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 708a (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. Jan. 12, 2015). Section 627.739(2)’s references to section 627.736 necessarily include references to the reimbursement limitation of section 627.736(5)(a)1.b....

...I disagree. Medical expenses covered under PIP are limited to those services and expenses which are reasonable and necessary. See Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Serv. Inc., 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2013). Under the majority’s interpretation of section 627.739(2), the deductible could be applied to a charge that is unreasonably high and thus not covered by PIP....

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by a personal injury protection [PIP] insured from an adverse declaratory decree which rejected the insured’s claim that Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1983), was unconstitutional because it allegedly denied the insured his right of access to the courts, Art....

...over any amount so deducted from any owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a vehicle or any person or organization legally responsible for any such person’s acts or omissions who is made exempt from tort liability by ss. 627.730-627.7405.” § 627.739(1), Fla.Stat....

judgment involving the appropriate application of section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which permits

...The Provider sued Allstate for PIP benefits. While the suit was pending, our supreme court decided Progressive Select Insurance Co. v. Florida Hospital Medical Center, 260 So. 3d 219 (Fla. 2018). In Progressive Select, the supreme court held that “section 627.739(2)[, Florida Statutes,] requires the deductible to be applied to the total medical charges prior to reduction under the reimbursement limitation in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b.” Id....

...TOTAL BILLED AMOUNT, OR TO THE TOTAL BILL AFTER SAID BILL IS REDUCED BY ANY APPLICABLE STATUTORY REDUCTION(S) AS CONTAINED IN FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 627.736(5)(a)(1)? We rephrase the certified question as follows: PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 627.736 AND 627.739, FLORIDA STATUTES (2013), IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY A POLICY DEDUCTIBLE TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF A PROVIDER’S INVOICES TO AN INSURED PRIOR TO  APPLYING ANY FEE SCHEDULE FOUND IN § 627.736, FLA. STAT.?...

...Applying the plain language of the PIP statute in light of its history, leads to the conclusion that insurers cannot use the Medicare fee schedule to reduce providers’ bills to the insured before the deductible has been satisfied. The issue in this case is whether section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2010), which mandates that an insured’s deductible be applied to “100 percent of the expenses and losses described in section 627.736,” allows an insurer to (1) reduce a provider’s claim to an amount allo...

...2d 271, 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, if the Act is not vague or ambiguous, it should not be construed in such a way as to broaden coverage. Govan v. Int’l Bankers Ins. Co., 521 So. 2d 1086, 1088 (Fla. 1988). Two statutes are at issue here: section 627.739, Florida Statutes (the “Deductible Statute”) and section 627.736, Florida Statutes (the “PIP Statute”). The Deductible Statute cross-references the PIP Statute....

...Therefore, under Overstreet, this court should look to the 2007 version of the PIP Statute to determine what the Legislature intended when it directed that the deductible be applied to “expenses and losses described in section 627.736.” 2. THE DEDUCTIBLE STATUTE (§ 627.739) “A ‘deductible’ is ‘a clause in an insurance policy that relieves the insurer of responsibility for an initial specified loss of the kind insured against.’” General Star Indem....

...The deductible amount is chosen by the insured and the insured is responsible for payment of claims until the deductible is satisfied. Mercury Ins. Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Cent., 182 So. 3d 661, 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Once the deductible is met, the insured’s right to access PIP benefits is “unlocked.” Id. Section 627.739 provides: (2) Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, and $1,000....

...allowed insurers to reduce an insured’s benefits by the amount of the deductible. Arnone, 552 So. 2d at 908. The following table compares the pre-2003 and post-2003 versions of the Deductible Statute: 5  Deductible Statute (§ 627.739(2)) Pre-2003 Version Post-2003 Version Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each Insurers shall offer to each policyholder ......

...§ 627.736(1)(b) (requiring disability benefits to be paid at 60% of loss and expenses). “[T]he 80% and 60% methodologies in section 627.736(1) are intended to limit reimbursements in order to establish benefits. They are not intended to describe the application of the deductible under the 100% methodology provided in section 627.739(2).” Florida Hospital a/a/o Parent, 2018 WL 792012 at *3. The insurer argues that the fee schedules found in section 627.736(5)(a)2....

...recoverable as benefits under the policy. Florida Hospital, a/a/o Parent, 2018 WL 792012 at *8. 10  I also agree with the Fifth District that the plain language of the Deductible Statute negates the insurer’s argument. Section 627.739(2) mandates that the deductible “must be applied to 100 percent” of the insured’s expenses and losses....

...As the Fifth District wrote: We believe that application of the optional reimbursement limitations to establish a reduced amount of expenses and losses from which the deductible amount is subtracted would render meaningless the requirement in section 627.739(2) that “[t]he deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses.” Florida Hospital a/a/o Parent, 2018 WL 792012 at *4. For these reasons, I would rephrase the question certified by the county court as follows: PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. § 627.739, IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY THE DEDUCTIBLE TO 100% OF AN INSURED’S EXPENSES AND LOSSES PRIOR TO APPLYING ANY PERMISSIVE FEE SCHEDULE PAYMENT LIMITATION FOUND IN FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 627.736(5)(a)1. (...

...Reiss, Miami, and Thomas J. Wenzel of Cindy A. Goldstein, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellee. KUNTZ, J. We are presented with the following question, certified by the county court to be of great public importance: PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. § 627.739, IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY THE DEDUCTIBLE TO 100% OF AN INSURED’S EXPENSES AND LOSSES PRIOR TO APPLYING ANY PERMISSIVE FEE SCHEDULE PAYMENT LIMITATION FOUND IN § 627.736(5)(A)(1), FLA. STAT. (2013)? We rephrase the certified question as follows: PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 627.736 AND 627.739, FLORIDA STATUTES (2013), IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY A POLICY DEDUCTIBLE TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF A PROVIDER’S INVOICES TO AN INSURED PRIOR TO APPLYING ANY FEE SCHEDULE FOUND IN § 627.736, FLA. STAT.?  F...

...applying the deductible and issuing payment. Here, the county court agreed with the provider, granted the provider’s motion for summary judgment, and certified the following question to be of great public importance: PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. § 627.739, IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY THE DEDUCTIBLE TO 100% OF AN INSURED’S EXPENSES AND LOSSES PRIOR TO APPLYING ANY PERMISSIVE FEE SCHEDULE PAYMENT LIMITATION FOUND IN § 627.736(5)(A)(1), FLA. STAT. (2013)? We previously exercised our discretionary jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4)(A) to answer the certified question, which we rephrase as follows: 1 PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 627.736 AND 627.739, FLORIDA STATUTES (2013), IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY A POLICY DEDUCTIBLE TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF A PROVIDER’S INVOICES TO AN INSURED PRIOR TO APPLYING ANY FEE SCHEDULE FOUND IN § 627.736, FLA. STAT.? For these reasons, we answer the rephrased certified question in the negative....

...(2008)). The parties agree that the insurer properly put the insured on notice of its intent to apply the fee schedule. They also agree on the amount of the applicable deductible. So our issue is narrow. We must determine the proper application of a PIP policy deductible, governed by section 627.739, Florida Statutes, and the PIP benefit statutory section, or section 627.736, Florida Statutes. To accomplish this task, we first look to the plain language of the PIP deductible statute....

...After the deductible is met, each insured is eligible to receive up to $10,000 in total benefits described in s. 627.736(1). However, this subsection shall not be applied to reduce the amount of any benefits received in accordance with s. 627.736(1)(c). § 627.739(2), Fla....

...The dispositive issue in this appeal is to determine what the following phrase means: “the deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s. 627.736.” To determine the meaning of the phrase “expenses and losses,” section 627.739(2) must be read along with section 627.736. Section 627.736 contains several references to “expenses,” and each section includes, directly or indirectly, a requirement that the expenses be 3The relevant provisions cited by o...

...3d at 150, 156–57). Now, returning to the PIP deductible statute, we first note our sister district’s interpretation of this section. Then, we offer our interpretation. Again, that section states “the deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s. 627.736.” § 627.739(2), Fla....

...A divided panel of the Fifth District recently interpreted this same provision of this statute. Parent, 43 Fla. L. Weekly at D318. 4 Judge Sawaya’s majority opinion agreed with the circuit court’s conclusion that “when calculating the amount of PIP benefits due to the insured, section 627.739(2) requires the deductible to be subtracted from the total medical care charges before applying the statutory reimbursement limitations provided in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2014).” Parent, 43 Fla....

...2018 opinion on a motion for rehearing and for certification to the Florida Supreme Court. The opinion on rehearing certifies the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PIP BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRE THAT THE DEDUCTIBLE BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CHARGES BEFORE APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736(5)(a)1.b., OR...

...TED FROM THE REMAINING AMOUNT? Parent, 43 Fla. L. Weekly at D322. On the same day it issued the opinion on rehearing in Parent, the Fifth District also released an opinion on rehearing in a 7  [Section 627.739(2)] distinguishes between “expenses and losses” and “benefits.” The second sentence states that the deductible “must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses.” In the very next sentence, the s...

...1992) (internal citations omitted). Whatever the reason the legislature declined to enact the proposed amendment to the statute has no bearing on our interpretation of the statute that it did enact. Ultimately, the Fifth District concluded “that Section 627.739(2) currently requires that the deductible be applied to 100% of the expenses and losses” and only then may an insurer reduce the billed amount to the amount the legislature has found reasonable....

...no matter if the PIP policy covers the charge, “fundamentally unreasonable.” Id. We find Judge Palmer’s position to be more persuasive. d. Our Interpretation of the PIP Deductible Statute and its Application to This Case Reading section 627.739(2) along with section 627.736, as the statute expressly requires, the deductible must be applied to 100% of the reasonable and necessary expenses....

...injured party, and is the limit the insurer and injured party must pay. It is also the amount to which the policy deductible logically applies. Conclusion The PIP statute allows insurers to offer policies with varying deductibles. § 627.739(2), Fla....

DELL, Chief Judge. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it failed to set off the amount of appel-lee’s Personal Injury Protection (PIP) deductible from a jury verdict. We agree and accordingly reverse. Section 627.739, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (1) The named insured may elect a deductible to apply to the named insured alone or to the named insured and dependent relatives residing in the same household, but may not elect a deductible to apply to any other person covered under the policy....

...medical expenses from their own PIP carrier. Consequently, under this statutory scheme, the Mansfields are obligated to pay the remaining 20% of these expenses. This calculation should not be confused with the optional deductible provided for under section 627.739, which allows an insured to elect a $250, $500, $1,000 or $2,000 deductible from the benefits the insured is entitled to receive from the insured’s PIP carrier. Id. at 990 n. 2. We disagree with appellee’s interpretation of Mansfield and hold that the plain language of section 627.739(1) mandates that a trial court, in addition to reducing the verdict by the amount of benefits paid by the PIP carrier, must also set off the amount of the injured’s party’s elected PIP deductible from the verdict against the tortfeasor. However, because of the comment in footnote two of the Mansfield opinion, we certify as a question of great public importance the following: DOES SECTION 627.739(1), FLORIDA STATUTES, MANDATE THAT A TRIAL COURT SET OFF THE AMOUNT OF THE INJURED PARTY’S ELECTED PIP DEDUCTIBLE AND THE AMOUNT OF BENEFITS PAID BY THE PIP CARRIER FROM A VERDICT AGAINST A TORTFEASOR? Accordingly, we reverse the tr...

...understanding of plaintiffs’ burden of proof. Under these circumstances, reversal is required. We find no error in the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict in view of the deductible provision on the PIP coverage. See § 627.739(1), Fla.Stat....

...ency provider's bill against the deductible first. The trial court ultimately granted ERG's motion, holding that an emergency service provider's claim should be prioritized. In so holding, the trial court appeared to apply sections 627.736(4)(c), 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2015), and Mercury Insurance Co....

...insurer receives notice of the accident. After the 30- day period, any amount of the reserve for which the insurer has not received notice of such claims may be used by the insurer to pay other claims. (emphasis added). Additionally, section 627.739(2) states: 4  Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $25...

...provisions require that an emergency service provider's bill "will be prioritized for payment; however, any such payment will be subject to any deductibles that exist in the insurance contract between the insured and the insurer." 182 So. 3d at 668.1 Mercury further states that section 627.739(2) requires that any policy deductible must be applied to 100 percent of bills submitted and that the statute makes "no distinction between bills submitted by an emergency service provider and bills submitted by a non-emergency service provider." Id....

...ncy provider's bill against the deductible first. The trial court ultimately granted ERG's motion, holding that an emergency service provider's claim should be prioritized. In so holding, the trial court appeared to apply sections 627.736(4)(c), 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2015), and Mercury Insurance Co....

...insurer receives notice of the accident. After the 30- day period, any amount of the reserve for which the insurer has not received notice of such claims may be used by the insurer to pay other claims. (emphasis added). Additionally, section 627.739(2) states: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, and $1,000. The deductible amo...

...provisions require that an emergency service provider's bill "will be prioritized for payment; however, any such payment will be subject to any deductibles that exist in the insurance contract between the insured and the insurer." 182 So. 3d at 668.1 Mercury further states that section 627.739(2) requires that any policy deductible must be applied to 100 percent of bills submitted and that the statute makes "no distinction between bills submitted by an emergency service provider and bills submitted by a non-emergency service provider." Id....

...5th DCA 2018), and Progressive Select Insurance Co. v. Florida Hospital Medical Center a/a/o Pena, 236 So. 3d 1182, 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In those cases, we denied Progressive’s petitions for writs of certiorari, concluding: Section 627.739(2)[, Florida Statutes (2014),] currently requires that the deductible be applied to 100% of the expenses and losses, and that is the version the circuit court properly applied....

...clearly established principle of law that results in a miscarriage of justice. Parent, 236 So. 3d at 1192. We also certified a question of great public importance: WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PIP BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRE THAT THE DEDUCTIBLE BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CHARGES BEFORE APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736(5)(a)1...

...0. The deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s. 627.736. After the deductible is met, each insured is eligible to receive up to $10,000 in total benefits described in s. 627.736(1). § 627.739(2), Fla....

...A premium reduction will result from these elections. The named insured is hereby advised not to elect the lost wage exclusion if the named insured or dependent resident relatives are employed, since lost wages will not be payable in the event of an accident. § 627.739(5), Fla....

...(quoting L.K. v. Dep’t of Juv. Just., 917 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). Applying this well-settled rule of statutory construction to the instant case, the express requirement of a signed approved form in section 627.727(9), but no such requirement in section 627.739, indicates that the Legislature did not intend for insurers to obtain an executed approved form in order to apply PIP deductibles....

HERSEY, Chief Judge. Mari Heidenstrauch brings this appeal questioning the constitutionality of section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1983)....

JORGENSON, Judge. The question before us is whether the adjective “dependent,” as used in section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), has some meaning other than its standard English definition “[t]hat depends or has to rely on something else for support, supply, or what is needed,” III Oxford English Dictionary 208-09 (1933)....

...e trial court’s final summary judgment. The relevant statutory language states that the named insured may elect a deductible “to apply to the named insured alone, or to the named insured and dependent relatives residing in the same household,” § 627.739, Fla.Stat....

...ent and sustained approximately $5,000 in damages. Because it was less than the $8,000 deductible Lumbermens refused to pay the Acostas’ claim. Here, as before the trial court, Lumber-mens makes the argument that “depend *1062 ent,” as used in section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), means something entirely novel to the definition of the word: “dependent for insurance coverage.” The Acostas, of course, argued and argue that in using the adjective “dependent” the legislature envis...

...t the Acostas, therefore, were not “dependent relatives” for purposes of the statute. By agreement of the parties, then, both before the trial court and here, the issue has come down to this: whether as a matter of law “dependent” as used in section 627.739 means “financially dependent” or “dependent for insurance coverage.” Lumbermens advances two arguments in support of its position....

...Lumbermens’ second argument is premised on the fact that no other state which *1063 allows an owner to elect a deductible for relatives, and Lumbermens names ten such states, 4 makes financial dependence a requirement. Previous to 1977 the adjective “dependent” did not appear in section 627.-739. See, e.g., § 627.739, Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1976) (“to the policyholder alone or to the policyholder and relatives residing in his household” (emphasis added)). 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), Fla.Stat....

...lists several other definitions of the adjective before us, they are obviously irrelevant to this discussion. . An act of May 4, 1982, ch. 82-243, § 557, I 1982 Fla.Laws 1289, 1568, inter alia, added the following language: "but may not elect a deductible to apply to any other person covered under the policy.” See § 627.739(1), Fla.Stat....

...he injured person.... ” Id. § 627.736(l)(b). “The named insured may elect a deductible or modified coverage or [any] combination thereof to apply to the named insured alone or to the named insured and [his] dependent relatives ...” Fla. Stat. § 627.739 (1) (emphasis added). So that policy holders can make informed decisions about their coverage, PIP insurers must offer policy holders the option to modify their policies at each renewal period. See generally Fla. Stat. § 627.739 ....

...and loss of earnings. To comply with the statute, carriers must “offer coverage wherein, at the election of the named insured, the benefits for loss of gross income and loss of earning capacity described in s. 627.736(1) shall be excluded.” Id. § 627.739(3) (emphasis added). The ability to modify the PIP component of an insurance policy must be presented to the policyholder in writing “in clear and unambiguous language at the time the initial application is taken and prior to each annual renewal_” Id. § 627.739(6)....

...A premium reduction will result from these elections. The named insured is hereby advised not to elect the lost wage exclusion if the named insured or dependent resident relatives are employed, since lost wages will not be payable in the event of an accident. Fla. Stat. § 627.739 (5)....

...ion benefits under his mother's policy, with an $8,000 deductible, rather than under Meeks' policy with no deductible. We reject his argument against this "inequity." Cf. Tapscott v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 330 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), provides that a named insured's election of a deductible will bind not only the named insured but also any person subject to the coverage....

court ruled there was no deductible under Section 627.-739, Florida Statutes (1977). The lower court

...5D16-2333 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 9, 2018). We certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance: WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PIP BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRE THAT THE DEDUCTIBLE BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CHARGES BEFORE APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.73...

...EPCF is an emergency services provider. It submitted its bill to the petitioner, Progressive American Insurance Company (“Progressive”), in accordance with section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2011). However, its bill was applied to Karani’s deductible under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2011). Therefore, Progressive did not remit payment to EPCF. EPCF, as Karani’s assignee, initiated an action in county court against Progressive for breach of the insurance policy....

...Following Mercury, the circuit court in the instant appeal erred in holding that the benefits to be paid from the $5000 reserve imposed by section 627.736(4)(c) are not subject to an otherwise applicable deductible. Such an interpretation runs afoul of the plain language of section 627.739(2), which sets out that “[t]he deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s....

...About ten days after the policy was written, Kwechin was injured in an accident. She filed a claim with Industrial, which promptly refused to pay any of her medical expenses below $4,000, the deductible amount. Kwechin sued, asking the trial court to declare that the deductible was offered by Industrial in violation of Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977), and was thus ineffective. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and from a summary judgment entered in favor of Industrial, Kwechin appeals. Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977), provides, in pertinent part: "In order to prevent duplication with other private or governmental insurance or benefits for senior citizens and others with access to such insurance or benefits, each insurer providing the coverage and benefits described in s....

...1973) (statute which permits insured, by his own knowing election, to forego insurance, and concomitantly denies to insured a right of access to the courts for redress for his injury, is unconstitutional in failing to provide a reasonable alternative to the loss of access). Because we hold that under Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977), an insurer may not offer deductibles to a person it knows to be without collateral coverage, we have no occasion to address this constitutional argument....

...In effect, he told her that the deductible was available in any event, but would be particularly beneficial, as non-duplicative, if she had other coverage. [3] Assuming that the insurer sold the policy to Kwechin at a reduced premium because of the deductibles, see § 627.739, Fla....

...Stat., it would be entitled to offset from any amounts due Kwechin the difference between the higher premium which it would have charged had there been no deductibles and the premium charged. Of course, the amounts due Kwechin will be "the benefits otherwise due," § 627.739(1), Fla....

...CANADY, C.J. In this case, we consider the proper method of applying a personal injury protection (“PIP”) insurance policy deductible to a medical provider’s bill for hospital emergency services and care. The issue presented is whether section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2014), requires the deductible to be applied before or after medical charges are reduced under the reimbursement limitation in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2014)....

...5th DCA 2018). There, the district court held that the deductible should be subtracted from the total charges—prior to application of the reimbursement limitation—and certified the following question to be of great public importance: WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PIP BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRE THAT THE DEDUCTIBLE BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CHARGES BEFORE APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736(5)(a)1.b., OR MUST THE REIMBURSE...

...The Fourth District concluded that the deductible should be applied after charges are reduced under any fee schedule found in section 627.736. See id. at 24. Accordingly, it certified conflict with the Fifth District in Progressive. Id. We answer the certified question by holding that section 627.739(2) requires the deductible to be applied to the total medical charges prior to reduction under the reimbursement limitation in section 627.736(5)(a)1.b....

...-2-  BACKGROUND Reimbursement for hospital emergency services and care is made under the framework established in section 627.736(5), subject to the deductible provided for in section 627.739(2)....

...authorizes insurers to “limit reimbursement to 80 percent of” a “schedule of maximum charges.” Under the schedule of maximum charges, reimbursement for hospital emergency services and care is limited to “75 percent of the hospital’s usual and customary charges.” § 627.736(5)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat. Under section 627.739(2), insureds may elect a deductible of $250, $500, or $1,000. Central to the dispute here is this provision of section 627.739(2): “The deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s....

...Id. Progressive next filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Fifth District, seeking second-tier review. See id. After rehearing, the district court found “no divergence from the correct law in the circuit court’s decision.” Id. at 1192. The Fifth District held that section 627.739(2) “indicates that the deductible applies to -4- ‘100 percent of the [insured’s] expenses and losses.’ ” Id....

...at 1187. “[U]sing [this] methodology,” the Fifth District concluded, “would render meaningless the requirement” that the deductible be applied to all expenses and losses. Id. The district court next contrasted the present version of section 627.739(2) with an earlier version of the statute. Id. at 1187-89. The Fifth District noted that section 627.739(2) previously required the deductible to be subtracted “from the benefits otherwise due” an insured....

...intent for the deductible to be subtracted from the total charges. Id. at 1189. The district court also acknowledged “that during the 2016 legislative session, the Florida Legislature failed to enact a proposed bill” that would have amended “section 627.739(2) to incorporate the method[] of subtracting the deductible” advanced by Progressive. Id. Finally, the Fifth District rejected Progressive’s argument that its interpretation of section 627.739(2) would prevent medical providers from -5- “render[ing] a bill for services that is unreasonable.” Id....

...any bill that” he or she “is required to pay to meet the deductible.” Id. at 1191. Third, the Fifth District invoked the principle that the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law “must be construed in favor of the insured.” Id. Interpreting section 627.739(2) in the manner advocated by Progressive would not further that principle, the district court opined, because it “would allow the insurer to pay less in benefits than would otherwise be due.” Id....

...-6- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, 212 So. 3d 973, 975 (Fla. 2017) (quoting Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc., 141 So. 3d 147, 152 (Fla. 2013)). We explain our decision in two parts. First, we examine the text of section 627.739(2) and consider its relationship to section 627.736. 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 shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, and $1,000....

...The deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s. 627.736. After the deductible is met, each insured is eligible to receive up to $10,000 in total benefits described in s. 627.736(1). § 627.739(2), Fla....

...inability to work, and “expenses reasonably incurred in obtaining” services for household chores that the insured would have otherwise performed. § 627.736(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). -7-  Section 627.739(2) contrasts these “expenses and losses” with the “benefits” available to an insured “[a]fter the deductible is met.” Section 627.736(1) describes “benefits” and places them in two relevant categories: disability and...

...the insurer—determined by the 60% and 80% methodologies, and governed by the 1. Section 627.736(1)(c) describes a third category, “[d]eath benefits of $5,000 per individual,” but these benefits are exempt from application of the deductible. § 627.739(2), Fla. Stat. -8- fee schedule, when applicable. “Expenses and losses,” on the other hand, refers to the total charges submitted to the insured—not only those which may be recovered as benefits. And section 627.739(2) provides that the deductible must be applied to 100% of such “expenses and losses.” Subtracting the deductible from the reduced fee schedule amount would violate this requirement. The reference in section 627.739(2) to “100 percent of the expenses and losses described in [section] 627.736” thus is to the amount charged before the application of the reimbursement limitation authorized by section 627.736(5)(a)1. To conclude otherwise would deprive the statute’s reference to “100 percent” of its manifest meaning. Progressive argues that when an insurer limits reimbursement under section 627.736(5)(a)1., the “expenses” identified in section 627.739(2) may not exceed the schedule of maximum charges....

...the - 10 - deductible, “which the insured alone is obligated to pay and which are not recoverable as benefits under the policy.” Progressive, 236 So. 3d at 1191. History of Section 627.739(2) The history of section 627.739(2) further indicates that it currently requires the deductible to be subtracted from the total medical charges before the reimbursement limitation is applied. Prior to 2003, section 627.739(2) stated, in pertinent part: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000, and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction. § 627.739(2), Fla....

...ature,” which, we noted, had “failed to enact a bill which would have amended the statute to make it consistent with the statutory interpretation presented . . . by the petitioner.” Id. at 1088 & n.*. In 2003, the Legislature amended section 627.739(2) to require that “[t]he deductible amount ....

...expenses and losses” indicates that the Legislature—in response to Govan— amended the statute to require that the deductible apply to the total charges submitted to the insured. The 2003 amendment further moved the term “benefits” to the next sentence of section 627.739(2)—“which discusses the insurer’s liability after the deductible is satisfied.” Progressive, 236 So....

...the reimbursement limitation existing when the “100 percent” requirement was adopted, but also before imposition of the subsequently adopted reimbursement limitation. - 13 -  CONCLUSION Section 627.739(2) requires the deductible to be subtracted from “100 percent” of expenses and losses, not 75% of a provider’s customary charges....

application of the deductible authorized under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2016), when personal

benefits in accordance with the provisions of Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1985), is to apply the

...ce Company. Prudential paid the father its liability limits of $15,000. The father and daughter then brought this action against Prudential to recover the $2,000 personal injury protection section of the father’s policy. The trial court ruled that Section 627.739, 1 Florida Statutes (1977), precluded recovery by the father on behalf of his daughter of the $2,000 deductible portion of personal injury protection benefits. The appellants, having failed to show any reason that the statute does not apply, we find no error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed. . “627.739 Personal injury protection; optional limitations; deductibles, optional methods of payment for repair work....

...rror and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a declaratory judgment that the $4,000 deductible in the subject insurance policy should be subtracted from the PIP benefits otherwise due each of the three injured insureds. § 627.739, Fla.Stat....

...apply the policy deductible to bills after adjusting the charges in line with the applicable fee schedules in 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2018), see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Care Wellness Ctr., LLC, 240 So. 3d 22, 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), or whether section 627.739, Florida Statutes (2018), requires a PIP insurer to apply the deductible to 100 percent of the billed expenses, see Progressive Select Ins....

...ure approved by this court in Care Wellness, which conflicted with the Fifth District’s decision in Progressive Select. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Florida Supreme Court approved the Fifth District’s calculation method: Section 627.739(2) requires the deductible to be subtracted from “100 percent” of expenses and losses, not 75% of a provider’s customary charges....

...peal erred in holding that the benefits to be paid from the $5000 reserve imposed by section 627.736(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2011), are not subject to an otherwise applicable deductible. Such an interpretation runs afoul of the plain language of section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2011), which sets out that “[t]he deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s....

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING GRANTED NESBITT, Judge. The sole issue for our resolution is whether summary judgment was improperly entered in favor of the insured finding that the insurer had breached its duty under section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1981) by issuing a personal injury protection policy which contained a deductible without first determining whether the insured had collateral coverage....

...3d DCA 1981), aff'd, 447 So.2d 1337 (Fla.1983), that the deductible amount did not apply. The trial court found that Bankers made no inquiry and had no knowledge of whether the insured had other coverage which would have provided insurance in place of the $8,000 deductible in question. The relevant statute, section 627.739, places the duty on the insurer to inquire whether the prospective insured has other coverage and only to offer personal injury protection deductibles to applicants with other coverage....

...quez. She is therefore entitled to bring an action for pain and suffering under 627.737(2), and Enriquez is accordingly not exempted from tort liability by subsection 627.737(1), nor is she entitled to set off the amount of Clark’s PIP deductible. § 627.739(1)....