Similarly, under theories of common law fraud and unjust enrichment, a plaintiff-insurer may recover damages in the amount paid to a medical clinic for fraudulent services. See, e.g., Vizcay, 826 F.3d at 1330; Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Gomez-Cortes, No. 20-21558-CIV, 2022 WL 820377, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2022), (finding defendants jointly and severally liable for “damages resulting from each of the Clinic Defendants' fraudulent PIP billing to GEICO” on claims of FDUTPA violations, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment)
A plaintiff-insurer may recover damages under the FDUTPA based on evidence that a defendant misrepresented a healthcare clinic's compliance with the Clinic Act, the nature and extent of healthcare services, and the medical necessity of healthcare services. See, e.g., Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Gomez-Cortes, No. 20-21558-Civ, 2022 WL 820377 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2022) (Torres, J.), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 2817961 (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2022) (Williams, J.) (in PIP fraud case with facts similar to the instant case, granting GEICO's motion for final default judgment on FDUTPA claims against defendants who engaged in a deceptive act by “misleading GEICO into believing that it had an obligation to pay the Clinic Defendant's bills for PIP benefits even though they were in violation of the Clinic Act”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Physicians Grp. of Sarasota, L.L.C., 9 F.Supp.3d 1303, 1312-13 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (observing that the FDUTPA is to be “liberally construed” and rejecting motion to dismiss plaintiff-insurer's FDUTPA claims based on PIP fraud scheme).