Be careful what you wish for

ALLIANCE SPINE & JOINT III, LLC a/a/o AUDREY BELMONTE vs GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 4D21-134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)

This is an interesting Florida PIP case as it deals with the bane of every PIP Plaintiff/Applicant attorney: filing fees. New York Civil Court, City Court and District Court attorneys fail to realize how lucky they have it with the filing fees in the lower courts in New York. Outside of service fees, a lower court attorney will spend no more than $85 per case in filing fees, from $1 to $15,000-$25,000. Arguably, multi-suits could be per Assignor, allowing the maximum set forth in a complaint to be larger than above.

In Florida, the filing fees are bifurcated. The complaint filing fee is: $55.00 (claim under $100); $80.00 (claims from $101-$500); $175.00 ($501-$2500); $300.00 ($2501 to $30,000). The summons fee is $10.00 and there is usually a $5.00 surcharge added to all transactions.

A volume practitioner will always try to fit within the $55.00 fee level. It is economical. After devoting $70 to aggregate filing fees (there is no NOT or motion fee in Fla), the volume practitioner will also try to move to amend if he believes the claim has merit.

The good people at GEICO caught on, knew they had no defense and filed a confession once the suit was served. Sure, the attorney/filing fee will be $2500, but they blocked out additional exposure. (Florida only allows one lawsuit per Claimant/Assignee).

A motion to amend was made, which the Court saw through:

“On May 16, 2019, approximately five and a half months after Geico confessed judgment and two weeks before the scheduled hearing on Geico’s motion to enforce the confession of judgment Provider moved to amend its complaint. Provider alleged, for the first time, that the “$54.10” in damages sought in the complaint was a “typographical error.” Provider made no mention of the complaint’s allegation that its damages “do not exceed $100.” As evidence that the “$54.10” was a typographical error, Provider attached to its motion a demand letter that it allegedly sent to Geico on October 11, 2016, demanding “$531.16” plus interest. “

“Thus, the controversy between the parties had not been so fully resolved that a judicial determination could have no
actual effect. Accordingly, to the extent the court seemingly denied the motion to amend on the basis that it lacked the authority to rule on the motion, we hold that it was error to do so. However, the court alternatively denied the motion to amend on the basis of prejudice. Because we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amendment on the basis of prejudice, we affirm the final judgment because at that point there was nothing left for the court to do but to enforce the otherwise valid confessed judgment”

The lesson is to know that with every action, there is an opposite yet equal reaction.