11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 756b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Reassignment — Validity — Where insured assigned benefits to provider, and provider subsequently reassigned benefits to insured, insured has standing to bring suit against insurer — Reassignment of benefits was not invalid for absence of consideration
GINGER SHAW, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE CO., a FL corp., Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 03-SC-1915-19-R. May 24, 2004. Ralph E. Eriksson, Judge. Counsel: Dean A. Reed, Altamonte Springs, for Plaintiff. George H. Featherstone, Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER ON AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on May 19, 2004 upon the Defendant’s, Progressive Auto Pro Insurance Company’s, Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. The facts do not appear to be in dispute and the Court finds them to be as follows:
1. The Plaintiff (patient) has an insurance policy with the Defendant (insurance company).
2. The patient was injured, went for treatment by the doctor and the patient assigned her insurance policy benefits to the doctor (by a written form called an “Assignment of Benefits”).
3. Some time thereafter, the doctor gave the policy benefits back to the patient (by a written form called a “Re-Assignment of Benefits”).
The insurance company’s motion for summary judgment essentially asserts that the patient does not have standing to bring this suit, because the doctor’s “Re-Assignment of Benefits” was invalid because (among other things) there was no consideration accompanying the transfer. This Court has found no legal requirement that there be consideration, or any other requirement, accompanying a person’s voluntary relinquishment of a property right.
In this case the patient gave her rights under a contract to the doctor. Thereafter, the doctor gave these rights to the patient. The fact that both “givings” involved the same thing and the same people is of no consequence. At the time the patient filed this lawsuit, the patient had the right to do so. It is, therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
* * *
