11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 914a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Where assignment of benefits is unambiguous and intent of parties is clear, insurer cannot present parol evidence to create ambiguity — There is no requirement that assignment specify intent to transfer all rights to insurance contract, only right to claim for benefits for services rendered by assignee
SCOTT SILAS, M.D., AS ASSIGNEE OF MARK IGLICH, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE BAYSIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2002-21334 CONS. May 28, 2004. Mary Jane Henderson, Judge. Counsel: Kimberly P. Simoes, Susan W. Tolbert, P.L., Daytona Beach. Steven R. Robinson, Daytona Beach. Frederick S. Jaeger, Daytona Beach.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for consideration, and the Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised, the Court makes the following findings of fact and law:
The Defendant has moved for summary judgment challenging the validity of the assignment of benefits relied upon by the Plaintiff. This document reads as follows:
ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS
The undersigned hereby assigns the benefits of insurance under the policy of automobile/health/workers compensation insurance with Progressive to Orthopedic Center of Volusia for services rendered to the undersigned patient and covered by the Personal Injury Protection/ Health/Workers Compensation coverage(s) under Mark Iglich policy with Progressive and in accordance with Florida Statute 627.736(5). The undersigned further agrees to pay any applicable deductible or co-payment not covered by the PIP/Health/Workers compensation insurance coverage.
Mark Iglich August 22/2002
(Patient’s Signature)(Date)
The undersigned hereby accepts assignment of insurance benefits for services rendered to:
Mark Iglich
(Name of Patient)
and to be paid directly to Mark Iglich under Policy#25319423-005 Personal Injury Protection/Health/Workers Compensation coverage(s) with Progressive
Based upon the memorandums of law, argument of counsel, record evidence and binding authority from the Fifth District Court, the Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
The parol-evidence rule provides that a written document intended by the parties to be the final embodiment of their agreement may not be contradicted, modified or varied by parol evidence. King v. Bary, 867 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). This Court finds the Assignment of Benefits unambiguous and the intent of the parties clear. As there is no ambiguity in the assignment as drafted, the Defendant cannot present parole evidence to create an ambiguity that does not exist on the face of the document.
In the Fifth District case Oglesby v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 781 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), the court held:
“only the insured or the medical provider owns the cause of action against the insurer at any one time. And the one that owns the claim must bring the action if an action is to be brought.”
There is no requirement that the assignment of benefits contain language specifying the insureds intent to “transfer all rights in the insurance contract” as argued by the Defendant. Without question the Plaintiff owns the right to the claim for benefits in this case. Therefore, the rights to the cause of action for recovery of the benefits also belong solely to the Plaintiff.
* * *
