10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1036d
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment — Validity — Fact that name of insurer and name of medical provider are not contained in assignment is not fatal — Assignment complies with requirements for valid contract between parties, services were provided as result of assignment and in reliance on assignment, and insurer made payments in reliance on assignment — Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on ground that plaintiff lacked standing denied
NARESH B. DAVE, M.D., P.A., (As assignee of Judy Blanco), Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 02-17192 SC. Division I. October 20, 2003. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., Tampa. Phil Yurecka.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This cause having come before the Court on September 25, 2003 on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and hearing argument from counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court rules as follows:
The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff lacked standing because the assignment of benefits was legally insufficient as it did not identify or mention the claimant/assignee, did not identify the Plaintiff/assignor, did not identify the insurer or insurance policy.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
The assignment of benefits is deemed to be adequate as it assigns the benefits, along with the cause of action. The fact that the name of the insurer and the name of the Plaintiff/medical provider are not contained in the assignment of benefits is not fatal. The assignment of benefits complies with the requirements for a valid contract between the parties.
The Plaintiff/medical provided services to the claimant/assignee as a result of the assignment of benefits and in reliance of the assignment of benefits. The Defendant/insurer also made payments in reliance of the assignment of benefits. Consequently, the behavior of the parties provides conditional validation of the assignment of benefits.
The court agrees with the ruling in Health Care Center of Tampa (a/a/o Darith Meadows) v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., (Hillsborough Cty Co., Judge Eric Myers, February 28, 2003, Case No. 02-21413) [10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 262a], wherein the court relied on Total Health Care of Florida (a/a/o Reina Perez) v. United Automobile Ins. Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 639, wherein:
‘The court found that the lack of a written signature by the medical provider on the assignment does not invalidate an otherwise valid assignment of benefits. Further the court can look to the medical provider’s conduct by treating, submitting bills and the filing of a PIP suit to determine it was the intent of the provider to accept an assignment of benefits.’
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY DENIED.
* * *
