10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 825b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment of PIP benefits by insured to medical provider and assignment in turn by medical provider to recovery specialists is not precluded by statute or case law
RECOVERY SPECIALISTS, INC., (as assignee of Jacksonville Emergency Consultants), (Gavin Morgan), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2003-CC-2660. Division G. August 1, 2003. Tyrie W. Boyer, Judge. Counsel: Michael Youngs. Kevin J. Loftus, Harrell & Johnson, Jacksonville.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION FORSUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVEFOR ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’SCLAIMS FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Final Judgment or in the Alternative for Order of Final Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims for Costs and Attorney’s Fees, and having heard argument of the parties and having reviewed case law provided, the Court, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. The facts in this case are not in dispute.
2. The Plaintiff, Recovery Specialists, Inc. (hereinafter RSI) is the assignee of Jacksonville Emergency Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter JEC). JEC rendered medical services to Gavin Morgan on June 23,1999. Mr. Morgan allegedly suffered personal injuries secondary to a motor vehicle accident. The Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company (hereinafter Progressive), provided PIP benefits to Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan assigned his PIP benefits to JEC who, in turn, assigned the benefits to RSI.
3. The Defendant has provided no appellate case law that prohibits the aforementioned assignments, nor does the PIP statute, specifically Florida Statute §627.736, prohibit such assignments.
4. The Court finds Professional Consulting Services, Inc. v. Hartford Life, Case No.: 2D02-429 (2DCA, July 16, 2003) applicable, but even if this case is not “on all fours”, for the reasons stated above, the motion is DENIED.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Final Judgment or in the Alternative for Order of Final Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims for Costs and Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.
* * *
