13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 713a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Dispute between insured and insurer — Insured had capacity to send demand letter at all times — Patient information/insurance form on which insured supplied personal information but no insurance information was not assignment — Intent of medical provider and insured manifested in document revoking assignment “to degree benefits were assigned” did not establish equitable assignment, as provider did not admit to existence of assignment
PRISCILLA M. KING, an individual, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida Corporation, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2006-SC-008736, Division J. April 26, 2006. Eleni E. Derke, Judge. Counsel: Vincent P. Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm, Jacksonville.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
This matter came before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition.
The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff, Pricilla King suffered personal injuries related to a motor vehicle accident on January 3, 2005. At the time Progressive Express Insurance Company provided PIP coverage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s treating physician ordered a cervical MRI to be performed and Plaintiff was sent to Southbank Imaging Services. While at Southbank Imaging, Plaintiff completed a “Patient Information/Insurance Form” supplying the requested information regarding the Plaintiff’s address, employment and next of kin. Though the form is titled “Patient Information/Insurance Form”, the form does not request any insurance information. Plaintiff’s insurer, Progressive Express Insurance Company, is not listed on the form, nor is the claim or policy number.
Southbank Imaging timely billed Progressive for the cervical MRI. On April 20, 2005, Progressive timely refused payment stating the Cervical MRI was not medically necessary. On October 20, 2005, Plaintiff sent Defendant the statutorily required “Demand Letter.” Defendant failed to make payment. On November 14, 2005, Southbank Imaging executed a “Revocation of Assignment” to Plaintiff, which stated:
“Pricilla King presented to Medical Diagnostic Center for an MRI of the cervical spine on April 11, 2005. To the degree benefits were assigned by Ms. King, we agree to reverse and revoke any assignment of benefits by Ms. King. . .” (Emphasis added)
On November 18, 2005, four days after receiving the “Revocation of Assignment”, Plaintiff filed the instant PIP suit against Defendant. On January 11, 2006, Plaintiff sent a second “Demand Letter” which failed to elicit Defendant’s payment of the disputed MRI charge.
Subsequently, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, alleging that Plaintiff assigned her rights to Southbank Imaging, and at the time of the first “Demand Letter”, October 20, 2005, Plaintiff did not own the cause of action and could not send a valid “Demand Letter.” Defendant alleges that, though Southbank Imaging revoked the alleged assignment four days prior to Plaintiff filing suit, the condition precedent, the first “Demand Letter” sent October 20, 2005 was not valid. Defendant avers that a proper “Demand Letter” is a condition precedent to filing suit, and that Plaintiff has not complied and summary disposition is appropriate.
Plaintiff argues that the “Patient Information/Insurance Form”, fails to qualify as an assignment, thus Plaintiff owned the cause of action at all times. Plaintiff argues that if the court determines that the “Patient Information/Insurance Form” is a valid assignment, that the second demand letter sent, January 11, 2006, cures any such condition precedent. The court need not reach the second argument, as the “Patient Information/Insurance Form” is not an assignment.
In the often cited State Farm v. Ray, 556 So.2d 811 (2nd DCA 1990) the court defined an assignment as “a transfer or setting over of property or of some right or interest therein, from one person to another.” Ray P.812. The court carefully reviewed the purported “assignment” and agrees that the document does not qualify as an assignment. The intent of the parties, as manifested in the “Revocation of Assignment” by the language: . . . “to the degree benefits were assigned. . .”fails to establish an equitable assignment as Southbank Imaging did not admit to an assignment.
Therefore, as an assignment fails to exist, Plaintiff, at all times had capacity to send the “demand letter” and Defendant’s request for Summary Judgment must be denied. The court does not reach the second argument regarding the legality of the demand letters.
* * *
