10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 451a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Preferred provider rates — Assignee who executed PPO contract brings suit against insurer with all of the rights of insured and her non-PPO policy — Section 627.736(10) provides exclusive means by which insurer may pay reduced PPO rates on PIP claim — Summary judgment granted in favor of assignee
CRAIG H. LICHTBLAU, M.D., P.A., Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Division. Case No. SS-02-008069-RD. April 22, 2003. Charles E. Burton, Judge. Counsel: Charles Kane, Kane & Kane, P.A., Boca Raton. J.D. Dickenson, West Palm Beach.
ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on April 21, 2003 upon the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on the arguments of counsel, the Court finds as follows:
Joann Dalessandro was involved in an automobile accident in June, 1998. At the time she had a No-Fault insurance policy issued by the Defendant. The Defendant did not offer her a PPO policy in compliance with F.S. 627.736(10). Thereafter, Ms. Dalessandro assigned her rights under the policy to the Plaintiff, who had executed a PPO contract with Beech Street.
Based upon the Plaintiff’s contract, the Defendant paid benefits per the assignment at 80% of the reduced PPO rates. That reduction amounts to less than $300.00. In seeking summary judgment, the Defendant seeks a ruling by the Court finding that the PPO contracts are valid and not subject to the provisions of F.S. 627.736(10).
Here, the Plaintiff brings this action with all of the rights of the insured and her contract with the Defendant. The Plaintiff does not have less rights simply because of a contract he had executed with Beech Street which was unrelated to the instant action or any rights possessed by Ms. Dalessandro. While it may be true that Ms. Dalessandro benefits from the PPO reduced rates because her insurance dollars will allow for more treatment, the Court is not persuaded that the Defendant had Ms. Dalessandro’s interest in mind.
The PIP statute is mandatory, Kirkman Chiropractic, P.A. v. Progressive Insurance Company, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 779a (County Court, Orange County, August 23, 2002). Section 627.736(10) provides the exclusive means by which an insurer may pay reduced PIP benefits, Charles Tucker, D.C. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 772a (County Court, Volusia County, September 27, 2002). County courts in Orange, Hillsborough, Broward, Manatee, and Palm Beach have reached the same result. Accordingly, the Court finds that F.S. 627.736(10) does apply to this case and the Defendant failed to comply with the statute. It is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. There being no issue of a material fact remaining, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
* * *
