Preview
Filing # 194754507 E-Filed 03/25/2024 03:46:50 PM
IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
BOWES IMAGING CENTER, A/A/O
SAMUEL SANTIAGO,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO: 2024 SC 000712 NC
CIVIL DIVISION
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Defendant, PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through the
undersigned attorney, files Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions dated
February 8, 2024, and would state as follows:
1. Admit the Defendant issued an automobile insurance policy which would provide PIP
benefits to the Assignor described in the complaint and said policy was in full force and
effect on the date of the accident described in the complaint.
RESPONSE:
Denied.
2. Admit the Defendant does not currently have any evidence to disprove that the Assignor
was involved in an automobile accident described in the Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Admitted that it was reported the Plaintiff’s alleged assignor was involved in a motor
vehicle accident and that said accident was reported to Defendant. Further, admitted
that Defendant does not currently have evidence to disprove the alleged accident.
Otherwise, denied. Defendant reserves the right to amend this response as discovery
remains ongoing.
Filed 03/25/2024 04:08 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL
3. Admit the Defendant is not alleging the bills at issue were submitted to the Defendant in
an untimely fashion.
RESPONSE:
Admitted at this time. However, Defendant reserves the right to amend this response
as discovery remains ongoing.
4. Admit that you currently do not have any evidence to rebut the treatment described in the
Complaint was related to the car accident described in the Plaintiff's complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. this request seeks a work product, prepared and/or obtained in
anticipation of litigation, and is subject to privilege, in-part or in-whole, in accordance
with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6) and as such is not a proper subject
matter for discovery. The Defendant asserts that pursuant to Derius vs. Allstate
Indem. Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove that
the medical expenses at issue were reasonable, necessary and related to the alleged
automobile accident set forth in the Complaint. Subject to and without waiving said
objections, denied as framed.
5. Admit that you do not have any evidence at to rebut the prices charged by Plaintiff were
reasonable for the bill(s) which are the subject of this litigation as described in the
Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. this request seeks a work product, prepared and/or obtained in
anticipation of litigation, and is subject to privilege, in-part or in-whole, in accordance
with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6) and as such is not a proper subject
matter for discovery. The Defendant asserts that pursuant to Derius vs. Allstate
Indem. Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove that
the medical expenses at issue were reasonable, necessary and related to the alleged
automobile accident set forth in the Complaint. Subject to and without waiving said
objections, denied.
6. Admit the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with any documents which would reflect
the amounts charged by the Plaintiff for the bills described in the Complaint were
unreasonable.
2
RESPONSE:
Denied.
7. Admit that Defendant did not send any additional requests for information to Plaintiff in
this case pursuant to F.S. 627.736(6)(b).
RESPONSE:
Admitted at this time. However, Defendant reserves the right to amend this response
as discovery remains ongoing.
8. Admit that you do not have any evidence to rebut the services described in the Complaint
were reasonably performed and medically necessary.
RESPONSE:
Objection. this request seeks a work product, prepared and/or obtained in
anticipation of litigation, and is subject to privilege, in-part or in-whole, in accordance
with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6) and as such is not a proper subject
matter for discovery. The Defendant asserts that pursuant to Derius vs. Allstate
Indem. Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove that
the medical expenses at issue were reasonable, necessary and related to the alleged
automobile accident set forth in the Complaint. Subject to and without waiving said
objections, denied as framed.
9. Admit that Defendant received an assignment of benefits from Plaintiff, which was signed
by the patient in this matter.
RESPONSE:
Denied.
10. Admit the Defendant is not alleging the Plaintiff's medical records were deficient,
inadequate or lacking sufficient accuracy.
RESPONSE:
Denied.
11. Admit the Plaintiff complied with all conditions precedent prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
Denied.
12. Admit that Defendant received a Written Intent to Initiate Ligation from the Plaintiff,
which included an assignment of benefits and an Itemized Statement containing dates of
3
service, medical procedures performed, amount billed by Plaintiff, amount paid, and
amount due (if any) for the service.
RESPONSE:
Denied.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been
furnished via E-Mail on March 25, 2024 to Chase J. Engelbrecht, Esq., Alpha Law Group,
Attorney for Plaintiff, Bowes Imaging Center, A/A/O Samuel Santiago,
cengelbrecht@alphagroup.law, Office@alphagroup.law, (941) 304-1500.
Progressive PIP House Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant
4030 Crescent Park Drive, Suite 100
Riverview, FL 33578
(Asst.)/(813) 775-4792 (Direct)
Fax: (866) 516-8617
SERVICE DESIGNATIONS:
Primary: TampaPIPHC1@Progressive.com
Secondary EHogref1@Progressive.com
By:
ERIC A. HOGREFE, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 113861
“Salaried Employees of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company”
4
Preview
Filing # 194754507 E-Filed 03/25/2024 03:46:50 PM IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION BOWES IMAGING CENTER, A/A/O SAMUEL SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO: 2024 SC 000712 NC CIVIL DIVISION PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ___________________________________/ DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Defendant, PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through the undersigned attorney, files Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions dated February 8, 2024, and would state as follows: 1. Admit the Defendant issued an automobile insurance policy which would provide PIP benefits to the Assignor described in the complaint and said policy was in full force and effect on the date of the accident described in the complaint. RESPONSE: Denied. 2. Admit the Defendant does not currently have any evidence to disprove that the Assignor was involved in an automobile accident described in the Complaint. RESPONSE: Admitted that it was reported the Plaintiff’s alleged assignor was involved in a motor vehicle accident and that said accident was reported to Defendant. Further, admitted that Defendant does not currently have evidence to disprove the alleged accident. Otherwise, denied. Defendant reserves the right to amend this response as discovery remains ongoing. Filed 03/25/2024 04:08 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL 3. Admit the Defendant is not alleging the bills at issue were submitted to the Defendant in an untimely fashion. RESPONSE: Admitted at this time. However, Defendant reserves the right to amend this response as discovery remains ongoing. 4. Admit that you currently do not have any evidence to rebut the treatment described in the Complaint was related to the car accident described in the Plaintiff's complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. this request seeks a work product, prepared and/or obtained in anticipation of litigation, and is subject to privilege, in-part or in-whole, in accordance with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6) and as such is not a proper subject matter for discovery. The Defendant asserts that pursuant to Derius vs. Allstate Indem. Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove that the medical expenses at issue were reasonable, necessary and related to the alleged automobile accident set forth in the Complaint. Subject to and without waiving said objections, denied as framed. 5. Admit that you do not have any evidence at to rebut the prices charged by Plaintiff were reasonable for the bill(s) which are the subject of this litigation as described in the Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. this request seeks a work product, prepared and/or obtained in anticipation of litigation, and is subject to privilege, in-part or in-whole, in accordance with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6) and as such is not a proper subject matter for discovery. The Defendant asserts that pursuant to Derius vs. Allstate Indem. Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove that the medical expenses at issue were reasonable, necessary and related to the alleged automobile accident set forth in the Complaint. Subject to and without waiving said objections, denied. 6. Admit the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with any documents which would reflect the amounts charged by the Plaintiff for the bills described in the Complaint were unreasonable. 2 RESPONSE: Denied. 7. Admit that Defendant did not send any additional requests for information to Plaintiff in this case pursuant to F.S. 627.736(6)(b). RESPONSE: Admitted at this time. However, Defendant reserves the right to amend this response as discovery remains ongoing. 8. Admit that you do not have any evidence to rebut the services described in the Complaint were reasonably performed and medically necessary. RESPONSE: Objection. this request seeks a work product, prepared and/or obtained in anticipation of litigation, and is subject to privilege, in-part or in-whole, in accordance with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6) and as such is not a proper subject matter for discovery. The Defendant asserts that pursuant to Derius vs. Allstate Indem. Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove that the medical expenses at issue were reasonable, necessary and related to the alleged automobile accident set forth in the Complaint. Subject to and without waiving said objections, denied as framed. 9. Admit that Defendant received an assignment of benefits from Plaintiff, which was signed by the patient in this matter. RESPONSE: Denied. 10. Admit the Defendant is not alleging the Plaintiff's medical records were deficient, inadequate or lacking sufficient accuracy. RESPONSE: Denied. 11. Admit the Plaintiff complied with all conditions precedent prior to the filing of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Denied. 12. Admit that Defendant received a Written Intent to Initiate Ligation from the Plaintiff, which included an assignment of benefits and an Itemized Statement containing dates of 3 service, medical procedures performed, amount billed by Plaintiff, amount paid, and amount due (if any) for the service. RESPONSE: Denied. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished via E-Mail on March 25, 2024 to Chase J. Engelbrecht, Esq., Alpha Law Group, Attorney for Plaintiff, Bowes Imaging Center, A/A/O Samuel Santiago, cengelbrecht@alphagroup.law, Office@alphagroup.law, (941) 304-1500. Progressive PIP House Counsel Attorneys for Defendant 4030 Crescent Park Drive, Suite 100 Riverview, FL 33578 (Asst.)/(813) 775-4792 (Direct) Fax: (866) 516-8617 SERVICE DESIGNATIONS: Primary: TampaPIPHC1@Progressive.com Secondary EHogref1@Progressive.com By: ERIC A. HOGREFE, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 113861 “Salaried Employees of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company” 4