Opinion
Case No. 5D21-2854
04-01-2022
The STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COLONIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. a/a/o Jarred Yearby, Respondent.
Michael A. Rosenberg, Daniela Silva, William E. Kirilloff and Sasha Pandolfo of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Petitioner. No Appearance for Respondent.
Michael A. Rosenberg, Daniela Silva, William E. Kirilloff and Sasha Pandolfo of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Petitioner.
No Appearance for Respondent.
EVANDER, J.
The Standard Fire Insurance Company ("Petitioner") petitions this court for writ of certiorari after the trial court denied its motion to compel the deposition of the billing manager for Colonial Medical Center, Inc. ("Respondent"). We grant the petition.
In the underlying case, Respondent, a medical provider, sought to recover on certain assigned Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims against Petitioner, the insurer of Respondent's patient. As an affirmative defense, Petitioner alleged that Respondent failed to timely submit its claims to Petitioner. See § 627.736(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017) (setting forth time limits by which medical provider must submit PIP claims to insurer).
Thereafter, Respondent filed a "Motion for Summary Disposition." In support of the motion, Respondent filed an affidavit from its billing manager, in which it was averred that the bills were timely submitted. Not surprisingly, Petitioner sought to take the deposition of the billing manager. When Respondent filed a motion for protective order to preclude the deposition, Petitioner filed the motion to compel that is the subject of this petition.
At the hearing on the motion to compel, Petitioner's counsel advised the trial court that the only remaining issue in the case was whether Respondent's claims had been timely submitted and that the purpose of the deposition was "to determine whether or not the bills were, in fact, timely submitted." Respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the deposition was unnecessary. The trial court denied the motion to compel without explanation.
Appellate courts will only grant certiorari relief where a trial court's order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law and causes a party to suffer material injury throughout the remaining proceedings that cannot be adequately remedied by appeal. Marrero v. Rea , 312 So. 3d 1041, 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021). For a denial of discovery to constitute material, irreparable harm, thus conferring certiorari jurisdiction, the denial must effectively eviscerate a party's claim, defense, or counterclaim. Id. at 1048.
Here, Petitioner sought to depose the individual selected by Respondent to submit an affidavit which went directly to the primary disputed issue in the case. The denial of Petitioner's motion was a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Beekie v. Morgan , 751 So. 2d 694, 698 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that order denying deposition of defendant driver of motor vehicle involved in collision that was subject of plaintiff's personal injury claim was departure from essential requirements of law). The effect of the trial court's order was to eviscerate Petitioner's ability to present its "untimely submittal of claims" defense. The harm resulting from the trial court's order is not remediable on appeal because there is no practical way to determine after judgment how the requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. Id. see also Marrero , 312 So. 3d at 1049 ("[T]he trial court's order banning all discovery into whether a settlement was reached clearly has eviscerated Petitioner's settlement defense, which has resulted in irreparable harm").
PETITION GRANTED.
TRAVER and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.