Rivera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
An insured sued State Farm in county court over a $2.59 shortfall in PIP mileage reimbursement (and thus for section 627.428 attorney's fees). The Third DCA affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding the section 627.736(10) pre-suit demand letter was deficient because it identified an incorrect/nonexistent medical provider, gave no provider address or dates of service, and failed to state an exact itemized amount owed.
Key facts
- Insured sued State Farm in county court seeking reimbursement for a $2.59 shortfall in PIP mileage benefits and attorney's fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes.
- The insured's pre-suit demand letter identified an incorrect or nonexistent medical provider, omitted the provider's address and dates of service, and failed to state the exact itemized amount owed.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The Third DCA aligns with the Fourth DCA's MRI Associates decision and resolves a long-running split among Florida county and circuit appellate divisions over whether strict or substantial compliance governs PIP… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
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.