BILLIE F. WICKER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the insurer's requested examination location was within a reasonable proximity to the insured's residence, making her refusal unreasonable.
An insured refused to attend a medical examination requested by her insurer for personal injury protection benefits, claiming the location was too far…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse PIP cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This is a suit by an insured against her insurer to collect medical and lost wages benefits under the personal injury protection provision of her automobile insurance policy.
Appellee requested appellant to submit to an orthopedic examination by a physician whose office was in Daytona Beach in Volu-sia County, Florida. Appellant, who resided in Bunnell, in Flagler County, Florida, refused to submit to the examination. There was no qualified physician to conduct such examination in Bunnell but there was in Ormond Beach, Florida. Section 627.-736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), which authorizes an insurer to request an insured to submit to such a physical examination, provides:
Such examination shall be conducted within the city of residence of the insured. If there is no qualified physician to conduct the examination within the city of residence of the insured, then such examination shall be conducted in an area of the closest proximity to the insured’s residence, [emphasis added]
Holding that under these circumstances the City of Daytona Beach was within an area of the closest proximity to Bunnell and that appellant’s refusal was unreasonable the trial court entered summary judgment for appellee.
We affirm. “An area” within the meaning of this statute does not mean the geographically closest city. Ormond Beach, Holly Hill and Daytona Beach are all within the same metropolitan area nearest to Bun-nell having a population sufficient to justify and sustain a choice of orthopedic physicians. The distance from appellant’s residence to the office of the doctor selected by the insurer was not so great as to cause appellant undue inconvenience. She should have gone and her refusal was unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frielingsdorf v. Allstate Ins. Co., 497 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…al examination which “shall be conducted in an area of the closest proximity to the insured’s residence ” where there is a “qualified physician”. § 627.736(7)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979) (emphasis supplied). In Wicker v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 404 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), the fifth district affirmed the entry of summary judgment against the insured on the basis of her unreasonable refusal to submit to a requested examination. Under circumstances where there was no qualified physician in the insur…
-
Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Belcher, 496 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…because there were qualified medical physicians and chiropractors with offices in cities closer to the insureds’ residences. We quash the circuit court’s decision because it fails to properly apply Wicker v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 404 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The facts in this case are not in dispute, and the issue turns simply on an interpretation and application of section 627.736(7)(a). It provides: Whenever the mental or physical condition of an injured person covered by person…