11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 568a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Where medical provider provided emergency care for insured following automobile accident, insured was unable to sign assignment because he was immobilized, and insured testified to intent and reasonable expectation that insurer would pay bill, insurer’s argument that provider is unable to recover for services because assignment was not signed is illogical — Assignment may be implied from circumstances — Summary judgment granted in favor of provider
RURAL METRO AMBULANCE, INC., as assignee of Ashley Billings, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 03-SC-1676. April 26, 2004. John Sloop, Judge. Counsel: Rutledge M. Bradford, Rutledge M. Bradford, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Yvette Rodriguez, Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER having come before this Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and this Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, following is noted:
FACTS
1. The Plaintiff filed a claim for PIP benefits arising out of emergency services it rendered to the assignee, Ashley Billings, as a result of a Motor vehicle collision.
2. Four months after the Plaintiff filed suit, the Defendant made payment directly to the Plaintiff, Rural Metro Ambulance, for the underlying benefits Payment was not submitted to Plaintiff’s counsel, despite being in litigation.
3. The Defendant did not pay interest when it paid the bill, despite having in its possession the envelope from the Plaintiff establishing that the bill had been received four months prior. The claims adjuster on the file testified that the directive to not pay the interest on the bill came from the Litigation adjuster.
The claims adjuster confirmed that interest appeared to be due and owing.
4. The Defendant asserted a lack of standing and filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the Plaintiff did not have a valid assignment of benefits and therefore no benefits were due and the payment did not constitute a confession of judgment.
5. Testimony from the assignee established that the assignment of benefits in this matter was not signed, as the assignee was strapped to a backboard and completely immobilized as a result of his injuries.
RULING
Having heard all the evidence and the argument of counsel, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The assignee was provided emergency care by the Plaintiff and was immobilized as a result of the accident. To suggest that the Plaintiff is not able to bring a lawsuit to recover payment for emergency medical services provided because the Assignment was not signed in this circumstances is illogical. The court notes that if this patient had died during transport or at the hospital without signing an assignment of benefits, the position urged by the Defendant would inequitably deprive the Plaintiff of a means of collecting payment for services rendered.
2. The assignee testified of his intent, testified as to his immobilization and to his reasonable expectation that his insurance company would pay the bills incurred as a result of his automobile accident.
3. Emergency medical providers are in a unique situation unlike other healthcare providers. They are the first line of response to injured persons and are dispatched by calling 911. They don’t have the luxury of a lengthy office visit to obtain signatures and discuss the nuances of their patient’s care. They are charged with the responsibility of evaluating, treating and stabilizing patients in hectic, stressful situations where time is of the essence and the patient’s health is acutely at issue.
4. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing is DENIED. The Defendant has asserted that Florida Law requires an assignment to be in writing and absent a written assignment, the Plaintiff’s claim must fail. The court notes that an assignment can be express or implied by the circumstances. The true test is whether the debtor would be justified in paying the debt to the person claiming as the assignee. McClure v. Century Estates, 96 FLA. 568; 120 So.4 (Fla 1928). Further, Florida law recognizes both express and implied assignments. Assignments require no specific form. “Formal requisites of such an assignment are not prescribed by statute and it may be accomplished by parol, by instrument in writing, or other mode such as delivery of evidences of the debt, as may demonstrate an intent to transfer and an acceptance of it.” Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Air Metal Industries, Inc. 176 So.2d 94; (Fla 1965).
* * *
