11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 44a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Where insured assigned only right for each assignee medical provider to receive timely payment from insured for reasonable and necessary medical services, and insured submitted claims for lost wages, prescription reimbursement, and transportation expenses more than thirty days prior to presentation of claims by assignee medical providers, insured erred in paying assignees’ claims and denying insured’s unassigned claims — Method of paying benefits improperly granted greater rights to assignees than those originally possessed by insured — Insurer’s exhaustion of benefits by paying assigned claims more than thirty days after it received insured’s valid unassigned claims is not relevant — Insured’s motion for summary judgment granted
DACIA WYATT, Plaintiff, vs. MGA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Small Claims Court. Case No. 16-2003-SC-1476, Div. L. August 12, 2003. Harold C. Arnold, Judge. Counsel: Jerilynn M. O’Hara. D. Scott Craig, Farah, Farah & Abbott, P.A., Jacksonville.
ORDER GRANTING FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT INFAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on August 6, 2003, and the Court having heard the argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby;
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff did not assign all her rights to receive No-Fault Benefits under the insurance policy to her medical providers. Plaintiff assigned only the right for each assignee medical provider to receive timely payment from Defendant for claims presented to Defendant for reasonable and necessary medical services related to the motor vehicle accident.
2. Plaintiff’s claims for lost wages, prescription reimbursement, and transportation expense were received by Defendant, more than thirty days prior to those claims presented by assignee medical providers. Despite this, Defendant paid the assignee’s claims, and denied the Plaintiff’s unassigned claims, due to the assignments. Defendant’s method of paying No-Fault Benefits in this case improperly granted greater rights to the assignees than those rights originally possessed by the assignor, in that Defendant improperly reserved benefits for the assignor’s future billing, contrary to the principles announced in State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Ray, 556 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
3. Defendant’s exhaustion of benefits, due to Defendant’s paying assigned claims more than thirty days after it received Plaintiff’s valid claims for wages, prescriptions and transportation is not relevant (Seminole Casualty Insurance Company v. Philip D. Schtupak, D.C., P.A., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 529a (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct., 2001).
4. Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment is hereby Granted.
5. Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment is hereby Denied.
* * *
