18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 494a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1805LABA
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical benefits — Standing — Assignment — Language of assignment was legally sufficient to convey standing on provider to file suit for PIP benefits
GULF COAST INJURY CENTER, LLC a/a/o Jason L. Labarbera, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 51-10-CC-09495, Division “M”. March 10, 2011. Matthew C. Lucas, Judge. Counsel: Lawrence H. Liebling, Liebling & Liebling, Safety Harbor, for Plaintiff. Adam R. Filthaut, Adams & Diaco, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE was heard March 7, 2011 upon the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Progressive Select Insurance Company (Progressive). The parties were represented by counsel. Having considered the motion, the court file, and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings:
A. Plaintiff, Gulf Coast Injury Center, LLC (GCIC), as assignee of Jason L. Labarbera, filed this action to recover personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for treatment rendered to Labarbera following a motor vehicle accident on December 14, 2009.
B. Progressive’s summary judgment motion presents the sole issue of whether the assignment attached to the complaint is legally sufficient to convey standing upon GCIC to file suit to recover PIP benefits under Labarbera’s auto policy with Progressive.
C. The document signed by Labarbera on December 15, 2009, which is attached to the complaint and Progressive’s motion for summary judgment, was prepared by GCIC. In pertinent part, the document contains provisions entitled, “Assignment of Benefits” and “Direction of Payment/Release of Information,” which read as follows:
ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS
I hereby assign any and all policies which provide medical benefits or no-fault benefits, all rights, title and interest to GULF COAST INJURY CENTER, LLC. (“Assignee”), for payment of services rendered to me by reason of accident, injury or illness. This assignment may only be rescinded/reassigned by the mutual consent of the patient/insured/assignor and the health care provider/assignee. If there is no assignment clause in the above policy, please defer to the authorization to pay segment of this letter.
DIRECTION OF PAYMENT/RELEASE OF INFORMATION
I hereby authorize any insurance company or attorney to pay direct to Assignee the amount of this and/or any future bills for services rendered unto me. I also agree to pay in a current manner any difference between the total charges and the amount paid by the insurance company directly to the Assignee. I hereby authorize Assignee to release any information requested that is pertinent to my case to any insurance company or attorney involved in this case. A photocopy of this assignment shall be considered as valid and effective as the original.
D. The Court finds that the foregoing provisions are not vague, ambiguous, or in conflict with one another, and that when read together, their meaning and effect are clear. While the Court is mindful of the rule that an ambiguous contract shall be construed against the drafter, the Court may not strain its interpretation so as to create an ambiguity where none exists. The Court must ascertain the parties’ intent from the plain language of the document, give reasonable and ordinary meaning to the terms employed, and construe related provisions in harmony with one another wherever reasonably possible.
E. Employing these well-established rules of construction, this Court finds from the plain language of the document that Larbarbera assigned to GCIC all of his right, title and interest in and to PIP benefits under his policy with Progressive for services rendered by GCIC. In so doing, Labarbera conveyed to GCIC the exclusive legal right to pursue any and all causes of action in the courts of this state to recover such benefits due under his policy with Progressive. Labarbera retained no right or control to sue for recovery of benefits for treatment rendered by GCIC, and GCIC now “owns” the claim. While a separate paragraph provides for direct payment of amounts due from Progressive to GCIC, and for Labarbera’s personal responsibility for amounts not covered under Progressive’s policy, this provision is entirely consistent with the other paragraph assigning all legal right of collection to GCIC. Accordingly, GCIC has legal standing to maintain the instant action.
Based upon the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Progressive’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby denied.
