12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 890b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Where named plaintiff did not provide any services to insured or submit bills to insurer, but rather services were provided and bills submitted by similarly named medical provider that is separate and distinct corporate entity, and neither plaintiff nor provider produced assignment of benefits, plaintiff lacks standing — Where plaintiff has not submitted any bills to insurer, motion for summary judgment finding plaintiff has not sustained any damages is granted — Motion for summary judgment finding plaintiff failed to satisfy condition precedent of furnishing demand letter is granted — Plaintiff whose bills had not been reduced or denied was required to submit demand letter under former version of statute then in effect and did not do so — Final summary judgment granted in favor of insurer
MOBILE DIAGNOSTICS, INC., A/A/O SUSAN SHEPARD, Plaintiff, vs. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 02-SC-003777. June 17, 2005. John R. Sloop, Judge. Counsel: Robert D. Bartels, Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Orlando. David Blessing.
REVERSED. 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 797a
ORDER
This cause having come on to be heard upon the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court, after being fully advised in the premises, states as follows:
1. On or about November 21, 2002, Plaintiff, Mobile Diagnostics, Inc. a/a/o Susan Shepard, served its Complaint against GEICO Indemnity Company for breach of contract.
2. GEICO moved for summary judgment asserting that Plaintiff, Mobile Diagnostics, Inc., was not entitled to maintain this cause of action against the Defendant on the following three (3) issues:
I. The Plaintiff was not the real party in interest and therefore lacks standing.
II. The Plaintiff has not sustained any damages and therefore is precluded from maintaining cause of action as a matter of law.
III. Plaintiff failed to satisfy conditions precedent.
It is the findings of this Court that:
3. The facts material to GEICO’s Motion for Summary Judgment are undisputed and established by the pleadings and affidavits of record. The material facts are set forth below.
4. The named Plaintiff, Mobile Diagnostics, Inc., did not perform any services to Susan Shepard, did not submit any bills to GEICO, and did not authorize the filing of this lawsuit.
5. Mobile Diagnostic Center, a separate and distinct entity, submitted a HCFA to GEICO for payment for services allegedly rendered to Susan Shepard.
6. Neither the named Plaintiff, Mobile Diagnostics, Inc., nor Mobile Diagnostic Center, produced an Assignment of Benefits during the course of the litigation.
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
7. Based on the foregoing, the Court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute, and that GEICO is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law for the reasons set forth below:
8. The Court grants Count I of GEICO’s Motion for Summary Judgment finding that the Plaintiff, Mobile Diagnostics, Inc., was not the real party in interest and therefore lacks standing to maintain this cause of action.
9. While the Court recognizes that the named Plaintiff, Mobile Diagnostics, Inc., and Mobile Diagnostic Center, the entity that allegedly performed services, are close in name, they are separate and distinct corporate entities authorized to transact business in the state of Florida.
10. In this case, Plaintiff brought suit under the name Mobile Diagnostics, Inc.
11. An Assignment of Benefits must be made to a legal person or a legal corporation and only one party can own a cause of action at any given time.
12. The person that owns the cause of action must be the party to bring the cause of action if one is to be brought.
13. Standing, as a matter of law, is determined when suit is filed. Standing may not be created after suit is filed.
14. Since the named Plaintiff did not submit any bills to GEICO and the named Plaintiff does not have an Assignment of Benefits, the Court concludes that the named Plaintiff is not the real party in interest and therefore lacks standing to maintain this cause of action.
15. The Court grants Count II of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment finding that the Plaintiff has not sustained any damages.
16. Based on the undisputed affidavit, it is clear that the named Plaintiff, Mobile Diagnostics, Inc., did not submit any bills to GEICO for payment on behalf of Susan Shepard. Since the named Plaintiff did not submit any bills to GEICO, GEICO has not reduced and/or denied any bills to the named Plaintiff. Based on the undisputed evidence, it is clear that the named Plaintiff, Mobile Diagnostics, Inc., has not sustained any damages.
17. Accordingly, GEICO is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
18. The Court grants Count III of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment finding that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy statutory conditions precedent.
19. Florida Statute §627.736(4)(b) provides that a medical provider must furnish written notice of the fact of a covered loss and the amount of covered loss to the insured.
20. The Court recognizes that this suit was filed prior to the fifteen (15) day demand letter requirement. However, under the former version of the statute, if an insurance company did not reduce or deny a provider’s bill, then the provider was required to submit a demand letter prior to initiating litigation.
21. In this case, the named Plaintiff did not submit a bill to GEICO on behalf of Susan Shepard and the named Plaintiff did not submit a demand letter prior to initiating this suit.
22. Accordingly, GEICO is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
23. Based on the above, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court grants final summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.
FINAL JUDGMENT
24. It is hereby adjudged that Plaintiff, Mobile Diagnostics, Inc. a/a/o Susan Shepard, shall take nothing by this action and Defendant, GEICO Indemnity Company, shall go hence without day and this Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purposes of determining any Motion by the Defendant to tax fees and costs.
* * *
