10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 466a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Small claims — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Assignment is valid despite language indicating that insured remains ultimately responsible for all charges incurred
NEUROSCIENCE & SPINE ASSOCIATES, P.L., as assignee of Jamie Lippe, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County. Case No. 02-3304-SP. March 17, 2003. Vincent Murphy, Judge. Counsel: Lorca Divale, Divale & Tolentino, P.A. Kristin H. Woolam.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause coming to be heard upon the foregoing Motion to Dismiss and the court having considered the record, having heard argument of counsel, and otherwise being duly advised in the premise, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) suit in Small Claims Court for damages resulting from an auto accident on or about November 25, 2001.
2. Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this lawsuit due to an invalid assignment of benefits.
3. Defendant argues that the Plaintiff lacks standing due to a defective assignment of benefits because the language of the assignment indicates that the patient (insured) is ultimately responsible for all charges.
4. The Plaintiff acknowledges that pursuant to the assignment of benefits the insured is ultimately responsible for all charges incurred. However, Plaintiff cites Oglesby v. State Farm Insurance Co., 26 FLW [Fla. L. Weekly] D702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) for the proposition that such a remainder does not invalidate an otherwise valid assignment. See also Allstate Insurance Company v. BMW Enterprises, Inc., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 95a (Fla. 17th Cir. 2002); In Kurdian v. State Farm, 7Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 695a (Fla. 17th Cir. 2000).
5. This court finds that the Plaintiff does have standing pursuant to the valid assignment of benefits and the fact that the insured remains responsible to the Plaintiff for any amounts not paid by the Defendant does not act as a limitation or qualification on the rights being assigned to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is not precluded from arguing a Motion for Summary Judgment that the assignment of benefits in question was revoked prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
* * *
