13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 686a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Error to dismiss medical provider’s PIP suit for lack of standing where insured, who had previously executed revocation of assignment providing that any assignment executed by insured after date of affidavit would be void unless also signed by insured’s attorney, executed assignment of benefits in favor of provider without signature of attorney — Lack of attorney’s signature did not deprive provider of standing — Further, regardless of whether assignment is valid, where provider rendered medical care to insured and insurer received benefit from care, provider is entitled to recover in quantum meruit for reasonable value of medical services
WILLIAM V. TEJEIRO, M.D., P.A., a/a/o FRANCISCA MARTINEZ, Appellant, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 05-164 AP. L.T. Case No. 01-11444 SP 25. April 28, 2006. An appeal from the County Court (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County, Mercedes A. Bach, J. Counsel: Arnold R. Ginsberg and Jonathan R. Friedland, for Appellant. Michael Neimand and Richard Patino, for Appellee.
(Before ARTHUR L. ROTHENBERG, THOMAS S. WILSON, JR., and MAXINE COHEN LANDO, JJ.)
(ARTHUR L. ROTHENBERG, J.) Francisca Martinez sustained injuries in an automobile accident on February 12, 2001. She was entitled to PIP benefits under an automobile insurance policy issued by appellee United. Following her accident, Ms. Martinez retained Walter Araujo as her attorney and executed a “revocation of assignment” affidavit, which was sent to United. This affidavit provided that any assignment executed by her in favor of any medical provider, after the date of signing, would be void unless it was also signed by her attorney.
Appellant Tejeiro is a doctor who treated Ms. Martinez after she executed the “revocation of assignment” affidavit. On July 10, 2001, Ms. Martinez executed an assignment in favor of Dr. Tejeiro. This assignment was not countersigned by her attorney.
Dr. Tejeiro filed suit in the county court against United after United refused to pay him for the medical treatment he rendered to Ms. Martinez. United moved to dismiss based on the failure of Ms. Martinez’s attorney to countersign. United asserted that Dr. Tejeiro had no standing to sue, arguing that the assignment executed by Ms. Martinez in his favor was void due to the failure of Ms. Martinez’s attorney to sign it. The trial court entered a final order dismissing Dr. Tejeiro’s complaint. Dr. Tejeiro appeals this dismissal.
We hold that the trial court erred when it entered a final order of dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim and found that Dr. Tejeiro did not have standing to bring this suit. In order for a medical provider to bring an action for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, the insured must assign his or her right to such benefits under the policy to the medical provider. Progressive Express Insurance Co. v. McGrath Community Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). It is undisputed that the insured executed an assignment in favor of Dr. Tejeiro. While United asserted below that the assignment was invalid because Ms. Martinez’s attorney did not also sign it, such defect, if any, does not deprive Dr. Tejeiro of standing to bring the action. Hence, the trial court’s dismissal for lack of standing was erroneous.
Moreover, the facts of this case support a conclusion by this Court that — regardless of whether the assignment is valid or invalid — a quasi contract exists between Dr. Tejeiro and United. Quasi contract is a legal fiction crafted to provide a remedy to prevent one party from being unjustly enriched at the expense of another. Tipper v. Great Lakes Chemical Co., 281 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1973); Doug Hambel’s Plumbing, Inc. v. Conway, 831 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In order to hold that a quasi contract “exists in a particular case, it is necessary to find that the defendant has received a benefit or has been unjustly enriched and should be required to compensate the plaintiff.” 11 Fla. Jur. 2d Contracts § 4.
It is beyond dispute that Dr. Tejeiro rendered medical care to United’s insured, Ms. Martinez. It is likewise beyond dispute that United received a benefit from this. Therefore, United should be required to compensate Dr. Tejeiro. Although Dr. Tejeiro and United did not expressly contract with each other, Dr. Tejeiro is entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of his medical services. Accordingly, we reverse the final order of dismissal and remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the reasonable value of Dr. Tejeiro’s services, and with instructions to the trial court to award attorney’s fees to appellant pursuant to §627.428(1). (WILSON and LANDO, JJ., concur.)
* * *
