14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 485b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Assignment not specifically naming doctors that treated insured and filed claim, but naming hospital where treatment was provided, is legally sufficient
ARTIBONITE INJURY CARE CENTER, a Florida Corporation (a/o Aristide, Michael), Plaintiff, vs. EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 06-5898 COSO (60). March 8, 2007. Sharon L. Zeller, Judge. Counsel: Josh Meadow, Law Office of Russell Lazega, P.A., North Miami, for Plaintiff. Vera Guilford, Hengber, Goldstein & Ray, P.A., for Defendant.ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and the court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises, the court finds as follows:
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff lacks standing because the assignment of benefits was legally insufficient as it did not identify the claimant/assignee.
An assignment is a transfer or setting over of property, or of some right or interest therein, from one person to another. State Farm v. Ray, 56 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Generally, contract rights can be assigned unless forbidden by the terms of the contract itself, or unless the assignment would violate some rule of public policy, a statute, or the contract rights involve obligations oF a personal nature. Hall v. O’Neil Turpentine, 47 So. 609 (Fla. 1908).
Except in cases where writing is required by statute, an assignment may be by parol, as well as by deed or other writing. Intention of the parties to the assignment is preeminent in the determination of whether there was, in fact, an assignment of rights if it cannot be determined by the face of the document.
The mode of assignment occurs when the obligee manifests an intention to transfer the right to another person without further action.
In Total Health Care of Fla. v. United Ins. Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 639, the provider failed to sign the assignment of benefits. The court therein found that the assignment of benefits was valid. “The lack of a written signature by the medical provider on the assignment standing alone does not invalidate an otherwise valid assignment of benefits. Further, the Court can look to the provider’s conduct by treating the patient, submitting bills to the Defendant and filing a PIP suit to determine it was the intent of the provider to accept an assignment of benefits.”
In Dave v. Allstate Ins. Co., 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1036, on Motion for Summary Judgment, the court found the assignments of benefits to be adequate even though the name of the insurer and the name of the medical provider are not contained therein. “The Plaintiff/medical provided services to the claimant/assignee as a result of the assignment of benefits and in reliance of the assignment of benefits. The Defendant/insurer also made payments in reliance of the assignment of benefits. Consequently, the behavior of the parties provides conditional validation of the assignment of benefits.
In Florida Emer. Phys. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1112a, on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment the court found that “Under Florida law, no particular words of art are necessary to create an assignment and the same can be made in writing, orally or partially of each. An assignment can be expressed or implied under the circumstances. Assignments can be equitable, where no 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 or chose in action and an intention on the other to receive will operate as an effective equitable assignment. As set forth by the Florida Supreme Court, the true test of an assignment is whether the debtor would, however be justified in paying the debt to the person claiming to be the assignee.” In this case the doctors that treated the patient were not specifically named. The assignment was given to the hospital where the patient was treated.
On a Motion to Dismiss, the court shall look to the four corners of the complaint. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
