10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 924a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Where there is nothing in document entitled “Release of Information Assignment of Payment Instructions for Direct Payment to Clinic” stating that insured relinquished rights to PIP benefits or that medical provider was accepting an assignment, document is authorization for direct payment, not assignment — Motion to dismiss granted — Attorney’s fees and costs awarded to insurer
PHYSICIANS INJURY CENTER, INC., (as assignee of Anita Douze), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 2000-7729-SC. Division H. November 29, 2000. Frank A. Gomez, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick., Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., for Plaintiff. Joseph F. Diaco, Jr., Adams, Blackwell & Diaco, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINTAND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
WHEREFORE, this cause came to be heard on the 20th day of November, 2000 before the Honorable Frank Gomez, on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for Lack of Standing and after hearing argument from opposing counsel and reviewing applicable case law, the Court finds as follows:
1. This is a claim for PIP benefits brought by Plaintiff, Physicians Injury Center, Inc., as assignee of Anita Douze, against Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, as a result of an alleged breach of contract.
2. Plaintiff is a health care provider who alleged in paragraph 7 of its Complaint that it had received a valid assignment of benefits in this matter.
3. The Court finds the purported assignment is unambiguous, and the construction of the terms of the unambiguous contact is a question of law for the Court. Peacock Construction Co., Inc. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., 353 So.2d 840, 842 (Fla. 1977); Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc. v. Williams, 551 So.2d 1251, 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In the absence of ambiguity in a contract, the language itself is the best evidence of the party’s intent and its plain meaning controls. Burns v. Barfield, 732 So.2d 1202, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
4. There is nothing in the document titled “release of information assignment of payment instructions for direct payment to clinic” stating that Anita Douze relinquished her rights to PIP benefits, or that Physicians Injury Center was accepting an assignment. The document plain and simply amounts to an authorization for direct payment to allow the insurance carrier to pay the health care provider directly, as opposed to having the insurance carrier pay the patient directly.
5. THEREFORE, after careful consideration, the Court finds that the “release of information assignment of payment instructions for direct payment to clinic” is not an assignment. Without a valid assignment Physicians Injury Center does not have standing to file the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED which is consistent with Judge Bonnano’s February 17, 2000 ruling in Brazell v. Allstate Indemnity Co., App. Case No. 97-07655 that a medical authorization and direction to pay does not constitute a valid assignment of benefits, and with this Court’s August 10, 2000 ruling in Physician’s Injury Center, Inc. (as assignee of Kimberly Ledbetter) v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., County Court Case No. 2000-7724 SC.
6. Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is hereby GRANTED, and the Court acknowledges Defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees for defending this action. Defendant shall submit to Plaintiff an affidavit outlining the attorney’s fees and costs at issue. Defense counsel will then file with the Court the same affidavit and set a hearing for the Court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs awardable. Any objections raised by Plaintiff shall be filed with the Court and considered by the Court at the hearing.
WHEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for Lack of Standing is hereby GRANTED with prejudice. Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is hereby GRANTED; the Court reserves jurisdiction for the sole purpose of determining the amount awardable.
* * *
