Legal Opinion
Ponders v. Fortune Insurance Co.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided March 19, 1991No. 90-1561PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Per curiam
Assuming, without deciding, that the insured Berineth Ponders unreasonably refused to submit to an examination by a chiropractor scheduled by the agent of her insurer Fortune Insurance Company on January 4, 1990, a matter concerning which we have grave doubt — we nonetheless conclude that Fortune was not entitled to deny PIP benefits to the insured under Section 627.736(7)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989) based on this refusal. We reach this result because Fortune waived whatever rights it had, if any, to deny PIP benefits to the insured based on the aforesaid refusal when Fortune, through its agent,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rader v. PratherSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
- Thomas N. Carlton Estate v. KellerSupreme Court of Florida · 1951
- Frielingsdorf v. Allstate Insurance Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cruz v. Union General Ins.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991