Posts Tagged ‘Richard Parrillo Sr.’

Appellate court victory in PIP lawsuit earns national attention for UAIC

Friday, July 30th, 2010

A victory in state court has produced national attention for United Automobile Insurance Corporation. As reported on this blog first, United Automobile won a nullification of legal fees from a panel of circuit court judges in Miami-Dade County in a case where the plaintiff sought to recover $2.53 in alleged overdue interest.

Insurance News Net contacted company founder and CEO Richard Parrillo Sr. and the company’s chief legal counsel, Jill Carabotta. Among the audio highlights of the interview with them:

We had to go to the appellate court to get justice. We have found that in many instances we don’t get justice in the county courts.

For the first time, we are seeing a little light at the end of the tunnel. Things were so prejudiced against us.

I think additional legislative changes are needed. Many safeguards have been run over by county judges…just annihilated.

The interview is online and you can hear it in its entirety  here.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Courts take heed of important ruling on small-dollar PIP lawsuits

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

A judge wanted to hand over $0.17 or $9.63 in interest (depending on whether the judge found the interest fluctuated or was a flat rate) to the plaintiff and big fees to its attorney, but the recent appellate court ruling on “de minimis” lawsuits put a stop to the nonsense.

Miami-Dade County Court Judge Lawrence D. King granted a motion for summary judgment by United Automobile Insurance Company (UAIC) after a higher court ruled that the courts should be cleared of small-dollar lawsuits.

Let’s hope that other county court judges fall in line and put an end to the abuse of the law by plaintiff attorneys. This ridiculous game of suing for pennies and pocketing tens of thousands of dollars in fees should have come to an end a long time ago.

George A. David had sued UAIC in 2008 on behalf of Stand-Up MRI, Inc., claiming that UAIC had underpaid the interest owed on a PIP treatment claim. As with other lawsuits, Stand-Up MRI had cashed the payment check before hiring an attorney who sent a letter demanding more money. The letter didn’t say how much.

Nor did the lawsuit. It wasn’t until David, of George A. David, P.A., got before Judge King that it became known his client was owed just $.17 or $9.63.

Judge King had denied UAIC’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, in which the company argued that the complaint failed to state the amount due and ordered UAIC to file an answer. Subsequently, UAIC filed a motion for summary judgment regarding Stand-UP MRI’s defective demand letter, which Judge King also denied.

UAIC argued that when it responded to the initial demand letter (which did not state the amount of interest owed), it requested that Stand-Up MRI contact UAIC immediately there was a discrepancy in the payment made. But instead of contacting UAIC and advising the interest was short by $0.17 or $9.63, Stand-Up MRI filed suit less than a week later.

UAIC then filed a motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of “de minimis non curat lex” which was set for hearing on July 17, 2010.  Based upon the recent ruling by the appellate circuit court which found that a similar lawsuit must be dismissed based upon the same doctrine, Judge King granted UAIC’s motion for summary judgment.

UAIC has been sued countless times for amounts from a few cents to a few dollars. Now that plaintiff attorneys cannot collect five- and six-figure fees for these needless lawsuits, the courts and taxpayers should see some relief.

There’s more to be done – stamping out PIP fraud, for instance – but taking away the economic incentive to sue first and let the insurance company know what you are suing for later has started to level the playing field in the courtroom.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Appeals court overturns verdict that gave big payoff to plaintiff attorney

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

The fee faucet from which so many plaintiff attorneys drink has been reduced to a potential trickle by the appellate division of Miami-Dade County circuit court. Before attorneys sue auto insurance companies over Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims, they must make clear beforehand what their client wants, said the court in a July 1, 2010, opinion authored by Judge Mark King Leban.

The court showed excellent common and financial sense. There is no reason that an attorney should pocket $13,000 when suing for two bucks.

In handing down a unanimous decision, the court said the only motivation for the lawsuit was attorney fees. The court told the county court judge to look at the lawsuit again, deny the plaintiff attorney her fees, and dismiss the complaint.

The case began after a United Automobile Insurance Co. (UAIC) policyholder was injured in a car accident in 2004. Fourteen months after UAIC paid her medical bills, her attorney, Maria Corredor, sent a letter saying that additional money was owed, but did not state how much.  Four months later Corredor filed suit, and only then did she explain that her client was seeking $2.53 in alleged overdue interest.

Corredor is a regular player in the plaintiff PIP bar.  When UAIC surveyed PIP plaintiff attorneys who sought the highest legal fees, the company found that she charged and was regularly awarded $400 an hour. She had every incentive to sue rather than write UAIC and ask for the tiny amount owed.

Without a trial, Miami-Dade county court judge Robin Faber awarded the plaintiff a total of $2.53 and gave Corredor $13,370.25 in fees and costs, plus interest.

The amounts made no sense – legally or economically – so UAIC appealed. Ridiculous fee awards like this one just encourage more plaintiff attorneys to bring frivolous suits in hopes of a big payday.

A panel of three Miami-Dade circuit judges acting in their appellate capacity agreed with UAIC in a 15-page opinion.  Had the plaintiff and her lawyer sent a letter specifying exactly how much was owed, “no lawsuit would have been filed, nor any judgment entered for such a paltry amount, nor any award for attorney’s fees for such a conscience-of-the-court shockingly large amount,” the court wrote in its opinion.

The judges then absolved UAIC of any wrongdoing.

“In the case at bar, there was no wrongful conduct by United,” they wrote in their opinion. The company paid the medical providers 14 months before Corredor sent her vague letter demanding more money. And her client waited 18 months after the medical providers cashed their checks to sue.

The court also said that county courtrooms should not entertain lawsuits for trivial dollar amounts. The court cited a Florida Supreme Court decision from 1858 in which a case was dismissed because the amount involved was a small (“de minimis”) amount between $9 and $11.  In the UAIC case, the judges wrote, “One wonders how ‘de minimis’ an amount for which an insured/provider will repair to the court for redress: $1.23? $0.25? A nickel?”

The answer is 17 cents, as reported in this blog. The good news is that the courts are running out of patience with plaintiff lawyers who waste the time and money of taxpayers and insured drivers. One can only hope that judges in Miami-Dade county courts and beyond heed the wise words in this court decision.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

UAIC to LaBovick: Let’s get to truth on PIP lawsuits

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

Our report on April 13 that LaBovick & LaBovick was filing hundreds of small-dollar lawsuits in Broward County apparently got the attention of the law firm and its managing shareholder, Brian F. LaBovick. Don’t think he caught United Automobile Insurance Company (UAIC) in the act of something devious, as the headline of his blog post would suggest. We were the ones who lifted the veil on his operations. Now, he is howling about “bringing the insurance giant to justice” in an April 27 blog post.

Thanks to our enterprising work, Mr. LaBovick now admits in his blog post that his firm has flooded the Broward courts with at least 1,000 lawsuits that are Personal Injury Protection (PIP) related. He also acknowledges that the plaintiff in every case is a company he controls, Gulfstream Medigroup. And Mr. LaBovick also admits that many of the lawsuits are for small sums of money.

Mr. LaBovick has a lot to say in his post about how he thinks his firm is undertaking a noble effort. He says his firm stands up for the rights of doctors and medical providers. There is a big problem with his argument: the doctors and medical providers he claims he is standing up for are not the ones filing suit and claiming they have been underpaid.

Mr. LaBovick also raises the question, “How much is the ‘right amount’ to be ripped off before a doctor sues?” Sadly, he has no numbers or statistics to back up the claim that anyone has been cheated. In reality, Mr. Labovick is filing lawsuits for bills that were previously paid in full, or were paid at an amount that the medical clinic accepted as full and final payment.  In one case, UAIC erroneously paid the medical clinic twice for the same services, with both checks cashed by the provider, and the LaBovick firm still filed a lawsuit claiming UAIC underpaid!  These are the numbers and statistics that will come out in court.

If you want to talk about rip-offs, cite numbers, such as the fact that the Florida Department of Insurance Fraud gets as many tips about PIP fraud as all other types of insurance fraud combined. Or read about the busts of medical clinics that excessively overcharge, submit bills for services never rendered, or treat people who stage accidents. Those people are the criminals who Mr. LaBovick should be criticizing.

So, Mr. LaBovick, let’s get down to what this is really about: your legal fees. In every case, LaBovick & LaBovick is seeking the same thing: attorney’s fees from insurance companies like UAIC.  If it weren’t about the attorney’s fees, then the lawsuits would have never been filed.  Why else would Mr. Labovick file a lawsuit for an alleged underpayment of $3.89 when it costs a minimum of $55 to file the suit?

Gulfstream Medigroup and LaBovick & LaBovick (which, of course, are one and the same) are just another group in a long line of attorneys that are out to milk Florida’s no-fault PIP system for exorbitant attorney’s fees.  This is a game to them, and the ones who ultimately pay are taxpayers and honest Florida drivers. The game needs to end.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

CEO Richard Parrillo, Sr., speaks out on PIP fraud in national magazine

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

The continuing exposes of personal injury protection (PIP) fraud by United Auto Courts Report are getting national attention. United Automobile Insurance Company (UAIC) CEO Richard Parrillo, Sr., was interviewed in March 2010 by Claims, a national magazine for the insurance industry.

UAIC’s efforts to fight PIP abuses by drivers, health clinics and attorneys geared up with the launch of this blog in December. Claims interviewed Parrillo about PIP fraud and what needs to be done to stop it. Here are excerpts from Parrillo’s interview. In it, he says:

  • PIP attorneys and clinics have been exploiting the system for as long as PIP has been in place.
  • In recent years, the [accident] runners have been replaced with more blatant solicitation efforts. Now, hotlines and advertisements such as 800-NEED HELP or 800-411-PAIN draw the accident victim in with promises of automatic payments of “$10,000 in benefits and lost wages.
  • Plaintiff PIP attorneys have told us directly that they share the fees with the [health] clinics.
  • The county courts reward plaintiffs’ attorneys for churning fees and performing unnecessary work to prosecute their cases. This phenomenon of inexplicable attorney-fee awards has fueled the fraud and abuse that permeates the PIP system.
  • PIP fraud and abuse is so widespread in Florida, it’s hard to say that the problem can ever be solved. … Of course, attorney-fee reform will have to occur for there ever to be hope of solving this problem.

For more of the interview, read the entire article on the Claims magazine Web site.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »