UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, A/A/O MILUNKA CABRERA
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.
Collateral estoppel cannot be applied where the insured or assignor differs between cases, even if the assignees and medical providers are identical.
[1] Collateral estoppel requires identity of parties, which cannot be satisfied when the insured or assignor differs between cases despite identical assignees and medical pro…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnited Automobile Insurance Company sought to challenge a summary judgment in favor of Millennium Radiology in a first-party personal injury protectio…
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 Collateral Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Insurer, United Automobile Insurance Company, challenges a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, Millennium Radiology, LLC, in a first-party personal injury protection action. On appeal United Auto argues the “identity of the parties” element of collateral estoppel is not satisfied where the assignees and medical providers are identical but the insured or assignor is different. Recognizing that the trial court did not have the benefit of our decision in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D175a (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022), at the time judgment was rendered, we agree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the order under review.
Reversed and remanded.