12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 166b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Where, despite insurer’s claim that insured executed assignment of benefits to medical provider individually rather than to plaintiff/medical provider’s professional association, it is clear from assignment that insured intended to assign benefits to plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment
MITCHELL R. POLLAK, M.D., P.A., (Bryan Goldstone, Patient), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 03-019275 COCE (54). November 5, 2004. Lisa Trachman, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein, Weinstein & Associates, P.A., Coral Springs, for Plaintiff. Matt Hellman, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND DEFENDANT’S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Plaintiff’s, MITCHELL R. POLLAK, M.D., P.A., motion for partial summary judgment on Defendant’s, PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Second Affirmative Defense of the Defendant’s Amended Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint; and Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. There is no genuine issue of material fact relating to Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense which claimed that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring suit in this matter.
2. The Defendant contends that Plaintiff never executed an assignment of benefits in Plaintiff’s favor.
3. Defendant alleges that the assignment of benefits was executed to Mitchell R. Pollak, M.D., an individual, not Mitchell R. Pollak, M.D., P.A., and therefore Plaintiff never received any assignment of benefits from Patient, Bryan Goldstone.
4. It is clear from the language of the assignment of benefits document that the insured intended to assign his rights under the automobile insurance policy with Progressive to Plaintiff. See, Giles v. Sun Bank, 450 So.2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The assignment of benefits conferred from patient to the Plaintiff the right to file suit against the Defendant for any benefits the patient incurred from Plaintiff in relation to patient’s automobile policy.
5. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to this affirmative defense raised by the Defendant in the Defendant’s Amended Answer and accordingly Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.
6. An assignment, according to the legal usage of the term, is “a transfer over of property or of some right or interest therein, from one person to another. It is the act by which one person transfers to another, or causes to vest in another, his right of property or interest therein.” 4 Fla.Jur.2d, Assignments Sec.1 (1978). As an assignee, one may enforce payments or the performance of an obligation due under an assigned contract. Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Air Metal Industries, Inc., 176 So.2d 94 (Fla. 1965).
7. In this instant action, the Assignment of Benefits form was executed by the insured. The document is titled in large bold-faced font, “ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS FORM.” The document displays the medical provider’s name in the body of the assignment. The document specifically states that the patient assigns his rights and benefits under his policy of insurance with Progressive Insurance Company. The Plaintiff even went so far as to sign the document accepting the assignment of benefits. Contrary to Defendant’s position and the above referenced case law, there is no information contained in the document that would legally invalidate the assignment. It is clear from the document that the insured intended to assign his rights under the automobile insurance policy to Plaintiff.
8. Under the holdings of the existing case law, this language is clearly sufficient in order to effectuate a valid and effective assignment of benefits. The consistency of case law finding that no particular words or form of instrument is necessary to effect an assignment and any language, however informal, which shows the intention on one side to assign a right or chose in action, and an intention on the other side to receive it, is controlling in instances where an assignment is executed between an insured and a medical service provider. The language in the Assignment of Benefits is clear, ample, concise, and direct.
9. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff provided insured with an assignment for his signature, treated the insured, submitted bills to Defendant, and filed the above referenced PIP suit against Defendant. Thus, the assignment of benefits is valid and Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment as a matter of law.
10. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense is hereby GRANTED and Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
* * *
