PIP Perspective: How can I correct an error made on a demand letter?

What are demand letters?

A law student will always remember three key phrases upon graduation: offer, acceptance, consideration. When choosing to litigate in the field of Personal Injury Protection (PIP), a PIP attorney will always remember that a demand letter is due prior to filing a complaint. Moreover, any competent PIP attorney will also be able to tell you that a lawsuit cannot be filed prior to giving the insurer 30 days to reply to any demand letter.

Demand letters are governed by Florida Statutes Section 627.736 (10). A demand letter must actually state that it is “a demand letter under s. 627.736 (See F.S. Section 627.736(10)(b)(2012).” A demand letter is likewise required to state with specificity the following the name of the insured and the claim number or policy number. The Third Section of 627.736(10)(b) likewise states that to the extent applicable, name of a medical provider, an itemized statement specifying exact amounts, date of treatment, services, etc.

For the purposes of this discussion, we will not delve into any greater detail than the above sections. The question then becomes, what happens when a demand letter does not contain all of the required information (pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 627.736(10)(b)?

Specific Demand Letter Requirements

Too much or not enough? Many ask the common questions: Can I file something that allows me to correct my errors? Or is substantial compliance enough?

The answer to both of the above questions is possible! Let’s start with the first question:

Motions to Abate: Within the Court’s Discretion

A demand letter may have been sent to the insurance company requesting reimbursement for medical services performed by the doctor. The demand letter may have failed to provide the amount claimed correctly, may have omitted the date of treatment, etc. The first option for the court is to dismiss the action altogether. A prudent defendant would file his/her answers/affirmative defenses and would indicate that the plaintiff has failed to fulfill a “condition precedent” required by the Demand Letter Statute (627.736(10)(b). The court can then decide whether dismissal is proper based on the omitted or incorrect information.

Another option is requesting the court to abate the action and allow the plaintiff time to correct its omissions/errors. In laymen’s terms, a Motion to Abate will allow the plaintiff a “do-over.” The court will instruct the plaintiff to “re-do” its demand letter in a specific amount of days. The defendant will then have a specific amount of days within which to respond to the demand letter. If the defendant does not pay the full amount, omits payment, or incorrectly pays, the action is re-instituted. However, if the plaintiff fails to send a demand letter out within the court’s timeframe (usually 30 days), the defendant will have the option of setting aside the abatement and proceeding on a Motion for Summary Judgment. It is within the court’s discretion to allow for abatement. Generally speaking, abatement should be allowed if the error does not affect a material term of the demand requirements. Material terms such as the number of services, name of insured, name of a medical provider, etc. should be included. Many courts invalidate demand letters that do not include the above-mentioned information.

Courts Interpretations of Demand Letters

Courts’ interpretations of demand letters vary. However, there are many cases that allow substantial compliance with the demand letter requirements. In the case of Rapid Rehabilitation, Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., (14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 180a) the plaintiff forgot to include the deductible in its calculation of how much was due for medical treatment provided. The court held that even though the deductible wasn’t accounted for, “the insurer is in the better position to determine whether deductible and could easily calculate disputed amount since no payments were made.”

Other courts have deemed demand letters compliant despite failing to include the phrase, “This is a demand letter under s. 627.736(10).” So long as the letter specifies the statutory scheme upon which the demand was made and was sent to the insurance company’s PIP representative and was sent to the PIP demand letter mailbox, substantial compliance is good enough. A demand letter will not be invalidated solely because the key phrase is not included within the body of the letter. Once again, the key inquiry is whether the insurer could reasonably be expected to figure it out.

Likewise, the omission of the insured’s name or the addition of an incorrect insured’s name will not necessarily invalidate a demand letter. Moreover, the same goes for the claim or policy number. Courts will look at the entire demand letter to identify whether or not the insurer should know the information or whether the insurer can readily access said information by looking at the letter as a whole.

Demand letter interpretation varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some judges are more lenient than others. One judge in one jurisdiction may even have a different opinion than another in the same courthouse! The modern trend is for the court to look at the “entirety of the demand on a case-by-case basis and determine whether the insurer could reasonably be expected to figure it out.”

Review Demand Letters

Demand letters are tricky documents to analyze. The better practice is to have an experienced Personal Injury Protection attorney review the demand letter prior to it being sent to the insurance company. We are able to review the document, suggest adding/omitting information, and this review is FREE! Yes, we do not charge for the review of your demand letter documents, so feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.

It’s easy to get started

Fill out the form or call us at 561-888-8888

Meet your legal team

We fight to win you more

It’s Easy to Get Started

Fill out the form or call us at 561-888-8888

Meet your legal team

We fight to win you more

no fee guarantee
Premises liability

PREMISE LIABILITY

$450,000

James was searching for equipment for painting at Home Depot. In the aisle next to him, there was a worker on a lift stocking the highest shelf. The worker pushed boxes so far across the shelf that they fell off the other edge and hit James in the head. The force almost knocked James unconscious. He sat down and the loud bang got the worker off the ladder to see what fell. When they saw James they offered him a bucket and made a report. James did not recall leaving the store or how he got home. He did not recall much except being at home depot and getting hit in the head. Home Depot told him that it was a small box of dust masks that hurt him. We discovered it was actually a large box of emergency kits that fell off the shelf.

Personal injury

PERSONAL INJURY

$850,000

In this case, our client slipped and fell on water that had accumulated near the hot tubs/showers on the Lido deck of a major cruise line ship. The client suffered torn ligaments to her shoulder that required 2 arthroscopic surgeries. The cruise line took the position that the condition on the floor was open and obvious.

Premises liability

PREMISES LIABILITY

$980,000

Georgia was visiting a friend in the hospital when she walked out of the elevator and into her friend’s room. As soon as she entered the room she slipped on a newly mopped floor without any wet floor sign present. The floor was so wet that Georgia’s entire outfit was soaked. Because of the muted tile floor, the water was invisible. Georgia needed a back operation which was unsuccessful and caused her to slip into a coma. She luckily survived.

Motor vehicle accident

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

$1.1 MILLION

AUTOMOBILE REAR END COLLISION

Rodrigo was driving his work truck home when he was rear-ended at a stoplight. Rodrigo needed a fusion of his thoracic spine. A terrible and complex operation. Unfortunately, while Rodrigo was undergoing the spinal operation, one of his children died and he was unable to be with his grieving wife. It was a tragic case that eventually settled.

Bicycle vs car accident

BICYCLE VS CAR ACCIDENT

$1.45 MILLION

David was a teacher at a local high school. He rode his bike to school in the morning and after school would ride another 10 miles for exercise. On a sunny afternoon on his way home an older driver turned right into him as he was riding down the street. He hurt his shoulder and neck and needed two operations. Defendant felt his injury was due to playing football 10 years earlier and would not provide him a fair or reasonable offer.

Car vs commercial truck accident

CAR VS COMMERCIAL TRUCK ACCIDENT

$3.4 MILLION

Joe was driving his 18 wheeler on the Florida Turnpike headed south after a long-haul run.  He was “bobtailing” which means he did not have a cargo trailer on the back of his truck rig.  A drunk driver lost control of his car causing Joe to avoid the accident but drive off the highway and into a canal.  He was injured in the accident but also witnessed a child die when he climbed out of the truck and came to the accident site.  There the injured child was trapped under the car and he was powerless to save the child before it passed.

Auto accident T-Bone

AUTO ACCIDENT T-BONE

$4.5 MILLION

Xao, a Vietnamese immigrant was driving home after work at night to see his pregnant wife. He stopped at a 4-way intersection and looked both ways. He did not see anyone in either direction. As Mr. X when through the intersection he was hit on the passenger side door by a mid-sized black SUV driving without their lights on. Mr. X was catastrophically injured.

Personal injury

PERSONAL INJURY

$8.2 MILLION

This was a hard-fought pedestrian accident case, in which our client was struck by an SUV driven by a teen driver, as they attempted to cross North Military Trail in West Palm Beach, FL. As a result of the accident, our client suffered numerous fractures, partial loss of vision and frontal lobe brain injury that affected his speech, and other personal injuries that required him to be hospitalized for 58 days.

At the time of the accident, our client was a cashier at Walmart and has been unable to return to work.

“This case is the epitome of what we consider part of our Core Culture and broad vision – which is to be Warriors for Justice,” stated Brian LaBovick. “Mr. Jacobus has serious permanent injuries and will continue to fight to regain his life into the foreseeable future. This verdict will allow him to get the professional help he needs to safely navigate the rest of his life.”

Medical malpractice

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

$15 MILLION

Brain damages child due to medical negligence.  Mother was misdiagnosed upon entry to the hospital while under contractions.  The child was born severely disabled.