11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 665a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Document that states it is direct assignment of rights and benefits under policy and lists rights assigned, including right to initiate litigation, is valid assignment — Fact that assignment is not dated does not invalidate it because by being attached to complaint assignment by definition predates filing of complaint
MEDICAL CONSULTANTS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, (Philip Cogan, Patient), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE 02-18329 (53). May 6, 2004. William Herring, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein, Weinstein & Associates, P.A., Coral Springs, for Plaintiff. Allan Green, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE §57.105
THIS CAUSE having been heard on April 12, 2004, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereupon.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The above-styled cause of action arises out of a claim filed by the Plaintiff, MEDICAL CONSULTANTS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, for unpaid personal injury protection benefits.
2. Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment contending that Plaintiff’s assignment of benefits filed with the complaint is invalid, and thus, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the instant lawsuit. Defendant argues that the assignment of benefits is a mere direction to pay, lacks the requisite language necessary for it to be deemed a valid assignment of benefits, is not dated, and not witnessed. The Defendant cites several cases to support its argument, including Wallace v. Omni Insurance Company, 5 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 284b (Pinellas Cty. 1998); Artau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679a (Hillsborough Cty. 1999); Physicians Injury Center v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 169a (Hillsborough Cty. 2002). This Court finds that these cases are not applicable to the instant matter.
3. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is not supported by material fact or applicable law and seeks sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is not tailored to the instant assignment of benefits and has not been updated with the current law.
4. The argument recited by the Defendant does not accurately demonstrate that the assignment of benefits rendered by the insured to the Plaintiff was inadequate and therefore, the Defendant has failed to show it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
5. An assignment, according to the legal usage of the term, is “a transfer over of property or of some right or interest therein, from one person to another. It is the act by which one person transfers to another, or causes to vest in another, his right of property or interest therein.” 4 Fla.Jur.2d, Assignments Sec.1 (1978).
6. The Courts in Florida have consistently held that no particular words or form of instrument is necessary to effect an assignment and any language, however informal, which shows the intention on one side to assign a right or choose in action, and an intention on the other side to receive it, if there has been valuable consideration, will operate as an effective assignment.
7. In this instant action, the Assignment of Benefits form executed by the insured is titled in all capital-letters “ASSIGNMENT AND INSTRUCTION FOR DIRECT PAYMENT TO DOCTOR PRIVATE AND GROUP ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE.” The document specifically states, “THIS IS A DIRECT ASSIGNMENT OF MY RIGHTS AND BENEFITS UNDER THIS POLICY.” Moreover, the assignment of benefits specifically lists the rights that are assigned to the medical provider. The assignment specifically states that it covers services rendered by Plaintiff to the patient under the PIP policy with Progressive. The assignment even anticipates that there could be litigation over the payment of such benefits as it states, “I also authorize the release of any information pertinent to my case to any insurance company, adjuster, or attorney involved in this case”.
8. The assignment further states, “This assignment includes, but is not limited to all rights to collect benefits directly from the patient’s insurance for services the patient had received and all rights to proceed against the patient’s insurance company any action, including legal suit if for any reason patient’s insurance company fails to make payment of benefits to which patient is due.” While Defendant asserts that there is no language within the document giving the Plaintiff the right to initiate litigation, this Court disagrees.
9. This Court finds that this assignment of benefits is unambiguous and sufficiently clear to assign the rights and benefits under the policy. See Total Health Care of Florida v. United Automobile Insurance Company, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 639a (Broward Cty. 2002); Kurdian v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 695a (Broward Cty. 2000).
10. The fact that the assignment of benefits is not dated does not make for an invalid assignment because by being attached to the complaint, the document by definition predates the date of the filing of the complaint.
11. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
12. This Court finds that the document is clearly an assignment of benefits and that the Defendant’s motion is without merit as it is not supported by material fact or applicable law, and accordingly, the Court awards $400 in attorney’s fees under Florida Statute 57.105(1) and (4), payable within (30) days of execution of this Order. The prompt payment of this sanction is a condition precedent to the Defendant being able to continue to defend this lawsuit.
* * *
