13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 168b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Where document stated that insured irrevocably assigned to medical provider his rights to any/all benefits and overdue interest on benefits covered by any insurance policy and indicated that consideration for assignment was services rendered, and there was no evidence that assignment was revoked or cancelled, provider has legally sufficient assignment
PROSPER DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, A/A/O OSCAR CENTENO, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 03 7232 SP 26 02. November 8, 2005. Bronwyn C. Miller, Judge. Counsel: Zack McWilliams. Oliver Wragg.
[Final Judgment at 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 168a.]
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and the Court having heard argument of counsel, reviewed the procedural history and relevant legal authority, and having otherwise been fully advised in the premises, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and enters final summary judgment for Plaintiff on the following grounds:
Background:
1. This is a breach of contract action for personal injury protection (hereinafter “PIP”) benefits. The action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on or about March 22, 2002. Following the accident, Oscar Centeno sought treatment from Plaintiff, PROSPER DIAGNOSTIC CENTER.
2. At all times material to this action, Centeno was covered by an insurance policy issued by UNITED AUTOMOBILE CO. (hereinafter “UNITED”).
3. Plaintiff submitted an invoice to UNITED for medical services rendered in the amount of $1,288.88 for a date of service of May 6, 2002. UNITED failed to pay the bill and Plaintiff filed suit on September 22, 2003.
4. This Court previously found that the medical services rendered were reasonable, related, and necessary to the accident at issue (See Court Order dated May 31, 2005).
5. The Court, however, denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the validity of the assignment of benefits executed in the case.
6. Plaintiff submits, and Defendant agrees, that standing is an issue of law to be determined by the court. See Garcia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 766 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Thus, this Court is required to determine whether or not a valid assignment of benefits exists in this case.
7. It is established Florida law that on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of proving the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966). Plaintiff has submitted an assignment of benefits form and an authenticating affidavit in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant has filed nothing in opposition.
8. In Boulevard Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Air Metal Indus., Inc., 176 So. 2d 94, 97-98 (Fla. 1965), the Florida Supreme Court stated: “Formal requisites of [an assignment of benefits] are not prescribed by statute and it may be accomplished by parol, by instrument in writing, or other mode, such as delivery of evidences of the debt, as may demonstrate an intent to transfer and an acceptance of it.” Thus, there is not specific language required to constitute a valid assignment of benefits.
9. This Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted a legal sufficient assignment of benefits form. Said assignment states in relevant part: “. . . I hereby irrevocably assign to Prosper Diagnostic Centers, Inc. my rights to any/all benefits and overdue interest on said benefits, covered under any policy of insurance . . .” The assignment of benefits indicates that the consideration for said assignment consists of the services of rendered; these services are clearly of value. The assignment reflects the date of the accident, the name of the patient/claimant, and the signature of the patient/claimant.
10. Plaintiff has further submitted an affidavit of Sandra Suarez, Office Manager of Prosper Diagnostics. Ms. Suarez indicates that she has personal knowledge that the claimant/patient signed an assignment of benefits and that assignment was accepted by Prosper Diagnostics.
11. There is no evidence before the Court that said assignment was ever revoked or cancelled.
Thus, summary judgment as to whether Plaintiff has standing is hereby GRANTED in favor of the Plaintiff. This Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact requiring submission to a jury.
* * *
