11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 914b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Document which although titled “Authorization and Assignment” only allows for direct payment is direction to pay, not assignment — Final summary judgment granted in favor of insurer
DREW MEDICAL, INC., as assignee of Barry Wilson, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County. Case No. CC-02-CL-1398. July 22, 2004. Jon B. Morgan, Judge. Counsel: George Milev, Adams, Blackwell & Diaco, P.A., Tampa. Amanda Gifford.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on June 30, 2004, on Defendant’s Addendum to Motion for Summary Final Judgment, and the Court having heard arguments of counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby FINDS, ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows:
1. This is an action for alleged breach of automobile insurance contract.
2. The Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 8, 1999 and as a result sustained injuries and received medical treatment.
3. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant for alleged breach of insurance contract claiming $12.00 in usual and customary reductions of a Drew Medical, Inc., bill for date of service 5/20/02.
4. Plaintiff alleged in paragraph 8 of its complaint that the insured had completed an assignment of benefits in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to attach the alleged Assignment of Benefits to the Complaint.
5. On September 12, 2002, Plaintiff filed the alleged Assignment of Benefits in this case.
6. The alleged Assignment of Benefits filed by Plaintiff and attached to the deposition of Plaintiff’s billing manager Andrea Shelton in its substantive part reads:
AUTHORIZATION AND ASSIGNMENT
In consideration of your undertaking me, I agree to the following:
1. Drew Medical, Inc., is authorized to release any information you may deem appropriate concerning my physical condition to my physician, insurance company, attorney, or adjuster in order to process any claim for reimbursement of charges incurred.
2. I authorize the direct payment to Drew Medical, Inc. for the benefits allowable, and otherwise payable to me under my current insurance policy or legal settlement as payment toward charges for the services rendered.
3. I understand that I will be responsible for payment of my account with Drew Medical, Inc., regardless of insurance payment or attorney settlement. If I default on payment, I then agree to pay any and all service charges, collection agency fees and court costs encountered in the collection process.
4. I authorize the general release of all medical records, x-rays, to physicians, insurance companies or attorneys which I may request.
5. I permit a copy of this authorization to be used in place of the original.”
7. The language of that document is clear and unambiguous.
9. The issue of standing can properly be decided on a Motion for Summary Judgment. See Santa Rosa County v. Administration Commission, 661 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1995); Lamar v. Wheels Unlimited, 513 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1987); Sterile Products Corporation v. Jones, 702 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
10. When an alleged assignment of benefits is unambiguous, the construction of the terms of that assignment is a question of law for the court. See Peacock Construction Co. Inc. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., 353 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1977).
11. While there are no particular magic words required for an assignment, there has to be something indicating that the insured is assigning his or her benefits under the contract to the assignee in order for that assignee to have standing and bring a direct action against an insurance company. Intent of the parties to an assignment is paramount, however, this Court did not have any additional evidence of Mr. Wilson’s intent regarding same. The intent of the parties is determined first from the language used in the document, second, from the apparent objects to be accomplished, from other provisions in the document, and the surrounding circumstances at the time of creation. See Terex Trailer Corp. v. McIlwain, 579 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Also, in the absence of ambiguity in a document, the language itself is the best evidence of a party’s intent and its plain meaning controls. See Burns v. Barfield, 732 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
12. The mere use of the word “assignment” in the title of the document does not create an assignment of insurance benefits when the only thing the document does is to allow for direct payment.
13. The Court finds that by its plain language the “Authorization and Assignment” in the current case is nothing more than a direction to pay.
WHEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Final Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
* * *
