Infinity Auto Insurance Company v. Miami Open MRI, LLC, a/a/o Rolando Amador
A PIP insurer's $100 proposal for settlement was invalidated by the trial court on the ground that its Paragraph Eight — reserving the insurer's rights and defenses in "any other actions or lawsuits now or hereafter pending relating to the claim" — was ambiguous and designed to extinguish claims outside the action. The Third DCA reversed, holding that the proposal read as a whole was neither ambiguous nor overbroad, because Paragraph Four expressly limited resolution to the claims in the pending case and Paragraph Six required dismissal only of "this case."
Key facts
- Rolando Amador was injured in an April 15, 2015 automobile accident while covered by an Infinity Auto PIP policy; he failed to appear for two properly noticed examinations under oath, causing Infinity Auto to deny payment for medical services rendered by Miami Open MRI on June 18, 2015.
- Miami Open MRI, as Amador's assignee, sued Infinity Auto for breach of contract; Infinity Auto raised a single affirmative defense that Amador's EUO non-compliance was a condition precedent to benefits under section 627.736(6)(g), Florida Statutes (2015).
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Holdings
- A proposal for settlement is not ambiguous or overbroad when, read as a whole, it clearly limits resolution to the claims in the pending action, even if one paragraph contains a reservation…
- +2 more holdings with a free trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.