10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 925b
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 — Motion to dismiss amended complaint granted with prejudice
PHYSICIANS INJURY CENTER, INC., (as assignee of Richard Dietrich), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 2000-7723 SC. Division H. May 9, 2001. Frank A. Gomez, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., for Plaintiff. Joseph Diaco, Jr., Adams, Blackwell & Diaco, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
AFFIRMED. 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 169a
AMENDED ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
WHEREFORE, this cause came to be heard on the 3rd day of April, 2001 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 Richard Dietrich, 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 Amended Complaint that it had received a valid assignment of benefits in this matter, and in the alternative, if it is determined that said document is not an assignment of benefits, through the intent of the Plaintiff and the patient, the patient assigned his benefits to the Plaintiff in a direct, de facto and/or equitable manner.
3. The Court finds the assignment attached to the Amended Complaint 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 Richard Dietrich relinquished his 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 did not have standing to file the claim at the time the instant lawsuit was filed as a matter of law. The allegations in the Amended Complaint are simply insufficient to cure the standing defect. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint 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. The Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, but reserves ruling on the amount.
WHEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for Lack of Standing is hereby GRANTED with prejudice.
* * *
