11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1008a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Where insured assigned benefits to medical provider, clinic filed suit against insurer as assignee or third party beneficiary, insurer filed answer asserting that clinic lacked standing, and provider subsequently reassigned benefits to clinic, clinic’s motion to amend complaint to substitute party is denied as attempt to improperly substitute party and avoid pre-suit requirements of PIP statute
WEST/EAST ORLANDO CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.A., as Assignee of JASLYN LEE, and/or Third Party Beneficiary, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. SC0-03-6027. August 18, 2004. Leon B. Cheek, III, Judge. Counsel: Robert D. Bartels, Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Orlando. Charles Steinberg.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE, having come before the Honorable Leon B. Cheek, III on August 2, 2004, upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Its Complaint, and the Court having been fully advised in the premises, states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On June 5, 2002, Progressive’s insured, Jaslyn Lee, assigned her rights for PIP insurance coverage to Vincent Preziosi, DC/C.V. Rehab.
2. On or about June 24, 2003, West/East Orlando Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. as assignee of Jaslyn Lee and/or third party beneficiary, filed suit against Progressive Express Insurance Company.
3. Progressive filed its Answer on July 7, 2003, alleging that the Plaintiff did not have standing to initiate or maintain this suit.
4. On February 26, 2004, Vincent Preziosi, DC, reassigned all rights, title, and interest which he possessed by virtue of the assignment of benefits received from Jaslyn Lee and reassigned all rights to Preziosi West/East Orlando Chiropractic Clinic, P.A.
5. On March 9, 2004, West/East Orlando Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. as assignee of Jaslyn Lee and/or third party beneficiary, filed its Motion for Leave to Amend its Complaint requesting permission to substitute the party’s name.
It is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Complaint is DENIED based upon Plaintiff’s attempt to improperly substitute one party for another. The substitution for one party for another after initiating litigation would prejudice the Defendant based on the Plaintiff’s attempts to avoid the pre-suit requirements of Florida Statute §627.736.
* * *
