18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 615b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1807FIEL
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Dispute between insured and insurer — Where insured had assigned benefits to two medical providers at time that he filed suit for unpaid PIP benefits, insured did not have standing when suit was filed — Insured’s lack of standing could not be cured by providers’ revocation of assignments after suit was filed
DARRYL FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 1st Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County. Case No. 2010 CC 002426. April 20, 2011. Patricia S. Grinsted, Judge.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on April 13, 2011, upon Defendant’s, USAA Casualty Insurance Company,
Motion for Summary Judgment.
The court, being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
A. At the time plaintiff, Darryl Fields, initiated the two lawsuits (consolidated into this case) for unpaid No-Fault Benefits for medical treatment provided by Michael Smith, D.C. d/b/a Waterside Chiropractic, and Stand-Up MRI of Tallahassee, Mr. Fields did not have standing to sue defendant, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, because Mr. Fields had previously executed a valid and enforceable Assignment of Benefits to both of these health care providers. Once the insured has assigned his right to bring a lawsuit for unpaid PIP benefits to a health care provider, he no longer has a claim against the insurer unless the assignment is rescinded by the assignee. Livingston v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 774 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D533c].
B. The health care providers’ subsequent revocation of the assignments after the initiation of these lawsuits does not cure the fact that plaintiff clearly lacked standing to bring these actions on the dates they were filed. Plaintiff cannot cure the lack of standing at the commencement of the action by acquiring it during the pendency of the action. Marianna & B.R. Co. v. Maund, 56 So. 670 (Fla. 1911).
It is, therefore, ADJUDGED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
