10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 925a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — 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 assignment, document is authorization for direct payment, not assignment — Summary judgment granted in favor of insurer
PHYSICIANS INJURY CENTER, INC., (as assignee of Kimberly Ledbetter), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 2000-7724 SC. Division H. May 22, 2001. 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 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WHEREFORE, this cause came to be heard on the 7th day of May, 2001 before the Honorable Frank A. Gomez, on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and after hearing argument from opposing counsel and after review the record and 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 Kimberly Ledbetter, 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). Because of the terms of the purported assignment of benefits are unambiguous, the testimony of Mabel Leong-Cheung and the affidavits submitted by Physicians Injury Center do not create a genuine issue of material fact on this Court’s interpretation of the document.
4. There is nothing in the document titled “release of information assignment of payment instructions for direct payment to clinic” stating that Kimberly Ledbetter 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 there are no genuine issues of any material fact 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 for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED. This ruling 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 as well as this Court’s rulings in other Physicians Injury Center claims brought pursuant to the same purported assignment of benefits.
WHEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED as there are no genuine issues of material fact.
* * *
