12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 103a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Equitable — Valid equitable assignment exists regardless of specific language in document and fact that it was unsigned — Florida does not require assignment to be in writing, there is ample evidence of intent of insured who was unable to sign assignment because she was strapped to backboard and of provider/ambulance service, and insurer would be justified in paying debt to provider which provided emergency services to insured
RURAL METRO AMBULANCE, INC., as assignee of Jane Critchfield, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 03-SC-1346. October 7, 2004. Mark E. Herr, Judge. Counsel: Rutledge M. Bradford, Orlando. Brian Pink, Orlando.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER having come before this Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and this Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the court finds as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. This is a claim for PIP benefits arising out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on or about 12/18/2002.
2. The Plaintiff, Rural Metro Ambulance was dispatched through 911 to treat and transport Ms. Critchfield, the Defendant’s insured, as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
3. The Defendant has asserted that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this cause of action, based on the assignment given in this case, asserting that the document is a direction to pay only and that further, the document was not signed by Ms. Critchfield.
4. The Plaintiff contends that the document constitutes an assignment and a valid reason exists for the absence of Mrs. Critchfield’s signature, namely that she was strapped to a backboard and unable to sign the document. The Plaintiff properly asserts that Florida law does not require an assignment to be in writing and further, that at a minimum, an equitable assignment has been created.
5. The Plaintiff filed an affidavit of Ms. Jane Critchfield, evidencing her clear intent to assign this cause of action to the Plaintiff, Rural Metro Ambulance at the time of her motor vehicle collision. Further, the Defendant deposed Ms. Critchfield at length and she testified repeatedly as to her intent that Rural Metro Ambulance have an assignment in this cause of action.
5. The affidavit of Cynthia Holt, evidencing Rural Metro’s intent to accept an assignment was filed with the court.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The law is very clear that a valid equitable assignment exists where it is necessary to effectuate the plain intent of the parties or where to hold otherwise would be unjust. Giles v. SunBank, NA, 450 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). No particular words or form of instrument is necessary to effect an equitable assignment, and any language, however informal, which shows an intention on one side to assign a right and an intention on the other side to receive it, if there is valuable consideration, will operate as an effective equitable assignment (emphasis added). Giles v. Sunbank, NA, 450 So.2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Assignability of choses in action is the rule rather than the exception and practically the only classes of choses in action which are not assignable are those for personal torts. Parties can generally assign causes of action derived from a contract or a statute. Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, Inc. 645 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) and Florida Power Corp. v. McNeely 125 So.2d 311 (Fla 2d DCA 1960).
Further, the courts have long held that an assignment, unless required by statute to be in writing, may be by parol or other evidence. Tunno v. Robert, 16 Fla. 738, (1878); Mangum v. Susser 764 So. 2d 653, 25 Fla L. Weekly D1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Protection House, Inc. v. Daverman and Associates, 167 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (the court found an oral agreement to constitute an assignment). Here, there is ample evidence before the court of the parties’ intent. Since Florida does not have a requirement that assignments be in writing, the understanding of the parties, as evidenced by sworn statements and testimony, stands as evidence of intent in this case.
If questions arise regarding the assignment, the courts have indicated the true test of an equitable assignment is whether the debtor would be justified in paying the debt to the person claiming as assignee. Giles, supra. Clearly, in the present case, the Defendant would be justified in paying the debt to Rural Metro Ambulance, as it was the entity which provided the emergency services to Ms. Critchfield. Accordingly, the court finds that a valid assignment exists, regardless of the specific language contained in the document and whether it was signed or unsigned.
Many courts have held that any act, which plainly makes an appropriation of a fund or debt may constitute an equitable assignment. McClure v. Century Estates, 96 Fla. 568, (Fla. 1928). It may be parol, or partly in writing and partly oral and may be completed merely by delivery of the subject assigned. In this case, Ms. Critchfield’s intent was to transfer her right to have emergency services paid to the party that transported her, Rural Metro Ambulance. Her intent was clear and evidenced in her affidavit as well as her sworn deposition testimony.
The court finds that to hold otherwise would result in an unjust result in the face of the clear intent of the parties. Ms. Critchfield stated her intent and the parties have each acted in accordance with that intent. The law clearly allows for the assignment to be in writing or oral or partially each. The Plaintiff has met this burden and the court finds that a valid assignment exists in this matter. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. The court reserves jurisdiction for costs and fees as appropriate.
* * *
