constitute a utilization limit.” Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(a)(3). Thus, the Defendant may use the MPPR if it is a “payment methodology,” but may not if it constitutes a “utilization limit.” Only through discovery can the Court determine whether the manner in which the Defendant applies the MPPR demonstrates its use as either a payment methodology or a utilization limit. At the pleading stage, the record is too thin to make this determination. See Central Magnetic Imaging, 789 F.Supp.2d at 1316 (denying motion to dismiss claim for breach of contract where insurer applied Medicare’s Multiple Diagnostic Imaging Rule (MDDIR) to limit PIP reimbursements); cf. Path Medical-Broward a/a/o Shanti’ Bryant v. Progressive Select Ins. Co., Case No. CONO15005121 (70), *4 (Fla. Broward Cty. Ct. 2016) (<HOLDING>). The breach of contract claim, therefore,
holding on summary judgment that the mppr is a payment methodology and not a utilization limit holding that if summary judgment is reversed and remanded parties are not limited to theories asserted in original summary judgment at later trial on merits holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed