11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 163a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Where, although documents are titled “assignment,” plain language of documents is not indicative of intent of insured to give up rights and benefits under insurance policy, documents are direction to pay, not assignment — Insurer’s motion for summary judgment granted
ORTHOPAEDICS OF BREVARD, P.A., As Assignee of Jan Storck, and/or Third Party Beneficiary, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2001-SC-028317. November 21, 2003. George Turner, Judge. Counsel: Lisa S. Del Vecchio, Thompson Goodis Thompson Groseclose & Richardson, P.A., St. Petersburg. Amy Romaine.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before this Honorable Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on November 13, 2003 and the Court having reviewed the file and otherwise being fully advised in these premises, the Court hereby finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint on or about June 6, 2001 in an attempt to recover no fault benefits under Jan Storck’s policy of insurance with the Defendant.
2. The Plaintiff was seeking reimbursement for date of service May 11, 1999.
3. The Defendant served Request for Admissions on the Plaintiff on June 20, 2002, attaching an authorization form signed by Jan Storck on April 13, 1999. In response to those Request for Admissions Plaintiff admitted that the document was one basis for the Plaintiff’s claim of assignment.
4. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging the Plaintiff lacked standing based on the authorization form of June 20, 2003. Plaintiff filed an additional form alleging to be an assignment on August 29, 2003 under a Notice of Filing.
5. The Defendant contends that both documents on their face failed to create a legal assignment, and therefore the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this cause of action relying on State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Ray, 556 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The Plaintiff contends that the documents presented are clearly an assignment and in the alternative the documents are ambiguous and require a determination of the intent on the parties.
6. In construing the alleged assignment documents in this case, the Court must consider whether language is unambiguous where the intent of the parties can be discerned from the four corners of the document. See MDR Chiropractic v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328a (15th Judicial Cir., March 14, 2002); See also Richter v. Richter, 666 So.2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
7. In reviewing the documents in the above reference matter, the Court finds that it is unambiguous and finds that both documents are a direction to pay. The plain language of both documents is not indicative of the parties intent to create an assignment, and therefore further inquiry of the intent of the parties is not necessary. The language contained therein is not a purported Assignment of Benefits but is merely a direction to pay; it does not constitute an assignment of benefits of the insured’s rights to sue under the subject insurance policy. See Dr. M.J. Bartell v. Allstate Insurance Company, 6Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 794a (15th Judicial Cir., September 21, 1999). The mere titling of a document as an assignment does not render it to be a true assignment of benefits. The underlying operative language of the document must be sufficient to support the fact that it is a true assignment.
8. In this case the documents relied upon were merely a direction to pay and there was no indication in the documents that the insured intended to give up their rights and benefits. See Bartell; see also American Diagnostic Inst. v. Allstate Indemnity Company, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 125a (17th Judicial Circuit, October 23, 2000) (upheld at 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 406a); see also Health Application Systems Inc. v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., 381 So.2d 294 (1st DCA Fla. 1980).
Accordingly it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
* * *
