11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 262b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment of benefits attached to second amended complaint is valid and, accordingly, insured did not have standing to bring suit against insurer for PIP benefits — Although caption was changed to add “for the use and benefits of” provider, insured remains the only plaintiff to lawsuit — Defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted
DAVID JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 19th Judicial Circuit in and for Indian River County. Case No. 2002-2142-CC-03. January 5, 2004. David Morgan, Judge. Counsel: John G. Rooney, Vero Beach. Elizabeth A. Montgomery, Vernis & Bowling, North Palm Beach, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on December 19, 2003, for hearing on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court, having reviewed same, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds that the following facts are not in dispute:
1. On or about May 17, 2002, the Plaintiff, DAVID JACKSON, was involved in an automobile accident, wherein he sustained personal injuries.
2. As a result of his injuries, DAVID JACKSON sought medical treatment from Florida Spine Group and was provided treatment at that facility.
3. At the time of the accident, DAVID JACKSON was insured with the Defendant, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“PROGRESSIVE”), for automobile insurance, including Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits.
4. On or about May 22, 2002, DAVID .JACKSON gave to Florida Spine Group an Assignment of Benefits.
5. This bills for treatment provided to DAVID JACKSON by Florida Spine Group were furnished to PROGRESSIVE for payment in accordance with the terms of the policy of insurance between DAVID JACKSON and PROGRESSIVE.
6. As a result of PROGRESSIVE’s alleged failure to make payment of PIP benefits within thirty (30) days as required by Florida Statute §627.736(4)(b), DAVID JACKSON brought the instant action for breach of contract against PROGRESSIVE.
7. The Plaintiff amended the caption of his Complaint to read “DAVID JACKSON for the use and benefits of TED H. PERKINS, D.C., P.A. d/b/a FLORIDA SPINE GROUP”.
8. According to the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the medical bills at issue are for treatment provided to DAVID JACKSON by Florida Spine Group.
9. Based upon the Assignment of Benefits given to Florida Spine Group by DAVID JACKSON, PROGRESSIVE filed its Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that DAVID JACKSON did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.
10. The Assignment of Benefits referenced above is part of a document titled “Assignment, Doctors Lien, Records Release and/or Power of Attorney” and is attached as Exhibit “A” to the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The relevant portion of this document relating to the Assignment of Benefits states as follows:
In the event my insurance company is obligated to make payments to me for charges billed by this office for their services and refuses to make such payments, upon demand by me or this office, I hereby assign and transfer to this office any and all causes of action that I may have or that might exist in my favor against such company and authorize this office to prosecute said cause of action either in my name or in the offices’ name, and further I authorize this office to compromise, settle or otherwise resolve said claim or cause of action as they see fit.
Based upon the above, the Court makes the following findings:
11. The Assignment of Benefits attached as Exhibit “A” to the Second Amended Complaint is a valid Assignment of Benefits.
12. Although the Plaintiff changed the caption of the Complaint to read “DAVID JACKSON for the use and benefits of TED H. PERKINS, D.C., P.A., d/b/a FLORIDA SPINE GROUP”, DAVID JACKSON remains the only Plaintiff to this lawsuit.
13. Based upon the Assignment of Benefits, DAVID JACKSON did not have standing to bring the instant lawsuit against PROGRESSIVE. See Oglesby v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 781 So.2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“insured’s assignment of PIP benefits to a medical provider deprived the insured of standing to sue the insurer, even though the insured remained liable for bills not paid by the insurer.”); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Ray, 556 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Because an unqualified assignment transfers to the assignee all the interest of the assignor under the assigned contract, the assignor has no right to make any claim on the contract once the assignment is complete, unless authorized to do so by the assignee.”); and Superior Ins. Co. v. Libert, 776 So.2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“If a party assigns his rights, he has no standing to file suit.”)
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby granted.
The Court retains jurisdiction as to Defendant’s entitlement to its attorney’s fees and costs and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
* * *
