Proposals for Settlement in PIP Cases: Should U.S. Security Ins. Co. v. Cahuasqui be Overturned?

In U.S. Security Ins. Co. v. Cahuasqui, the court ruled that a proposal for settlement can apply to personal injury protection (PIP) cases in Florida. This means that if someone sues their insurance company for denying PIP benefits and loses, they may have to pay the insurance company’s attorneys’ fees and costs. This decision conflicts with the purpose of the PIP statute, which was to provide quick and automatic payment for medical bills. The statute was created to replace the old system where injured parties would sue regardless of the amount and severity of their injuries. This decision may be overturned on appeal because it goes against the original intent of the PIP statute. In PIP litigation, there are disputes over small amounts of money, often in the hundreds of dollars. The PIP statute allows for the claimant’s attorney fees to be paid by the insurance company if the claimant is successful. Recent court decisions have upheld this “one way street” for claimants to receive attorneys’ fees. However, there is a debate over whether the proposal for settlement statute, which encourages early settlement, should apply to PIP cases. A recent court decision ruled in favor of applying the settlement statute to PIP cases, but this goes against the intent of the PIP statute. This means that insurance companies could use the settlement statute to limit the claimant’s rights under the PIP statute. The law about attorneys’ fees in insurance cases is meant to apply to PIP cases too, so there was no need for an extra law about it. The law allows insurance companies to make a settlement offer in a PIP case, but this can scare people away from pursuing their claims. This goes against the purpose of the law, which is to encourage settlements. It also puts people at a disadvantage compared to the insurance company. Overall, the law about settlement offers in PIP cases doesn’t help injured people and goes against the reason the law was made in the first place. When someone makes a PIP insurance claim, the insurance company can use a rule that makes the person pay their legal fees if they don’t accept a lower settlement amount. This puts the person at a big disadvantage because they might not be able to afford to take the risk of going to court. This can lead to them settling for less money than they deserve. This is not fair because the PIP law was meant to help people get the money they need for medical expenses. In small claims court, these rules may not even apply, making it even harder for people to get a fair outcome. In Cahuasqui v. Law Firm, the Florida Supreme Court is likely to overturn the Third District Court’s decision. This is because the PIP statute was created to help insured people, and recent Supreme Court opinions support this. The Third District Court didn’t consider important PIP cases, so their decision doesn’t seem to align with the Supreme Court’s views. Therefore, it’s likely that the Supreme Court will overturn the Third District’s decision in Cahuasqui.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/proposals-for-settlement-in-pip-cases-should-u-s-security-ins-co-v-cahuasqui-be-overturned/