Fortune Insurance Co. v. Figueroa
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sun Bank/South Florida, NA v. Baker (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
- Freshwater v. Baker (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the contention of the PIP insurance carrier [Fortune Insurance Company], we conclude that the PIP insured [Joseph Figueroa] is legally responsible for the reasonable medical bills in this case, and, that, accordingly, he is entitled as the trial court found, to PIP coverage for such bills under his insurance policy with Fortune; we therefore affirm the orders under review.
We reject Fortune’s contention that there is no PIP coverage for such bills because Section 440.13(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989) insulates Figueroa entirely from any further liability for such bills; plainly, the acceptance of Figueroa’s workers’ compensation benefits by the medical care providers in this case
Affirmed.
. These providers were not under contract with the employer or the employer’s carrier to provide medical services to the insured herein.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.