11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 934b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Document that merely authorizes medical provider to receive payment of benefits is insufficient to operate as legal or equitable assignment
MICHAEL A. ABRAHAMS, M.D., P.A., (NEWELL, RACHEL), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 03009274 COCE 53. June 14, 2004. William W. Herring, Judge. Counsel: Matt Hellman, Matt Hellman, P.A., Plantation. Brian K. Korte.
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
THIS CAUSE having come to be heard on May 11, 2004, on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and making the following findings:
1. The above styled cause of action arises out of a claim by Plaintiff, MICHAEL A. ABRAHAMS, M.D., P.A., for personal injury protection benefits.
2. Defendant, PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, filed its Motion for Summary Judgment contending that Plaintiff’s alleged assignment of benefits, filed with its Notice of filing, is invalid, and thus, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the instant lawsuit. Defendant argues that the alleged assignment of benefits is a mere direction to pay and lacks the requisite language necessary for it to convey a valid assignment of personal injury protection benefits to the Plaintiff.
3. The purported “Assignment of Benefits” is entitled “Attending Physician’s Statement.” The document states in pertinent part: “Authorization to Pay Benefits to Physician: I hereby authorize payment directly to the undersigned physician of the Surgical and/or Medical Benefits, if any, otherwise payable to me for his services as described below but not to exceed the reasonable and customary charge for these services.”
4. Moreover, said document does not even contain the word “ASSIGNMENT” anywhere within its four corners. Regardless, Plaintiff argues its is sufficient to convey an assignment of PIP benefits. This Court disagrees.
5. This Court finds with the Defendant, as it relies upon Orthopaedic Associates of South Broward v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 565a (17 Jud Cir., April 22, 2003), wherein this Court stated that a document with the subheading “Assignment of Benefits”, the language “this assignment”, and the operative language “I . . . . . assign payment to . . . . of all medical benefits applicable and otherwise payable to me, . . . .”, was merely a direction to pay and not an assignment of benefits. This Court again follows the logic it did in Orthopaedic Associates when it elaborated,
What is being assigned? Payment only is being assigned, not rights or benefits; to interpret the wording otherwise would be to ignore standard rules of grammatical construction. The object of the verb ‘assign’ is the noun ‘payment’, with the phrase commencing with the conjunction ‘of’ being an adjectival clause describing what the payments are. An assignment of payment is the functional equivalent of a direction to pay.
6. Additionally, this Court follows the reasoning adopted in Health Applications Systems Inc. v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., 381 So. 2d 294, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) and Physicians Injury Center v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 9 Florida Law Weekly Supp 169a, whereby it was ruled that:
Mere agreement to pay a debt out of a designated fund does not operate as a legal or equitable assignment, since assignor retains control over subject matter and such an agreement amounts only to a mere promise to pay, and does not meet the test of an intention on part of assignor to give, and of assignee to receive, present ownership of the fund.
7. As is contemplated in Health Applications, this Court rules that the document in question in the instant case is insufficient to operate as legal or equitable assignment. Simply authorizing a third party to receive payment does not make that third party either an equitable assignee or an intended beneficiary of any contract. In this case, the Plaintiff is merely an incidental beneficiary of the insured’s policy for insurance, and that alone is insufficient to support standing to bring this lawsuit.
8. Furthermore, this Court expressly finds that the language contained in the subject document is unambiguous, and as such, the Court finds no need to look to parole evidence to discern the intent of the parties. The language contained within the four corners of the alleged assignment clearly conveys nothing more than the right to receive payment directly from the insurance carrier, and in no way evidences an intent to assign the rights under the insurance policy.
9. As the document on which Plaintiff relies to support its standing to bring suit is clearly no more than a Direction to Pay, and does not in fact convey the requisite standing to bring this lawsuit, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that Plaintiff, MICHAEL A. ABRAHAMS, M.D., P.A., take nothing by this action and Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, shall go hence without day and the Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of determining any motion by Defendant to tax fees and costs.
* * *
