14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 984a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Where assignment was made to corporate entity distinct from plaintiff medical provider, there is no equitable assignment to plaintiff, and plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit
PARTNERS IN HEALTH PALM BEACH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION (a/a/o ROOSEVELT LABASTILLE), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Civil Division. Case No. 06-11405 COSO 62. July 27, 2007. Terri-Ann Miller, Judge. Counsel: Joshua Meadow, for Plaintiff. Reuven T. Herssein, Law Offices of Herssein & Herssein, P.A., Miami Beach, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS CAUSE, having come before this Honorable Court on Defendant’s Motion for Final Judgment on the Pleadings heard on July 2, 2007, and after having reviewed the file, heard argument of counsel, and having been otherwise sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
The named Plaintiff, Partners in Health Palm Beach Inc., (a/a/o Roosevelt Labastille), filed its Complaint alleging breach of contract and entitlement to Personal Injury Protection benefits under an automobile insurance policy between the Defendant and its insured, Roosevelt Labastille.
To satisfy the requisite standing to bring the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff attached to its Complaint an assignment of benefits executed by the insured. Nowhere within the four corners of the assignment of benefits attached to the Complaint, however, is the name of the Plaintiff, “Partners in Health Palm Beach, Inc.”
A close review of the assignment of benefits attached to the Complaint revealed that in three separate locations, the assignment of benefits is made to entities other than the named Plaintiff Partners in Health Palm Beach, Inc.
The assignment attached to the Complaint named “Partners in Health” or “Partners in Health Chiropractic Center” as the entities accepting the assignment of benefits.
Defendant argues that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit, as the insured in this case assigned his rights and benefits to either “Partners in Health” or “Partners in Health Chiropractic Center,” not the named Plaintiff, “Partners in Health Palm Beach Inc.”
The Court finds it persuasive that “Partners in Health”, “Partners in Health Chiropractic Center,” and “Partners in Health Palm Beach, Inc.” are three (3) distinct corporate entities, with different Tax Identification Numbers, and different officers and directors. Further, neither entity, “Partners in Health” or “Partners in Health Chiropractic Center,” submitted bills for medical services rendered to Roosevelt Labastille in this case.
Defendant argues that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit, as the insured in this case assigned his rights and benefits to either “Partners in Health” or “Partners in Health Chiropractic Center,” not the named Plaintiff, “Partners in Health Palm Beach Inc.”
Defendant further argues that even though payments for PIP benefits were previously made under the insured’s policy to the named Plaintiff, there is no waiver of subject matter jurisdiction as its absence can be questioned at any time. Medical Rehab and Therapy Center d/b/a Pain Corrective Center of Brandon, Inc. at 605a (citing 84 Lumber Company v. Cooper, 656 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)); Stel-Den of America, Inc. v. Roof Structures, Inc., 438 So.2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
In its Response, the Plaintiff argues that standing is satisfied as the insured equitably assigned his rights and benefits to the named Plaintiff. Plaintiff urged the Court to find an equitable assignment based on the intent of the parties and whether the debtor would be justified in paying the debt to the person claiming as assignee (McClure v. Century Estates, 96 Fla. 569, 120 So. 4, (Fla. 1928)) Giles v. Sun Bank, N.A., 450 So.2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Since it was the intent of the insured to assign his rights and benefits under the policy, there must be a valid equitable assignment and therefore Plaintiff’s standing requirement is thereby satisfied.
Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the Defendant waived its right to question the assignment by making previous payments to the named Plaintiff, “Partners in Health Palm Beach, Inc.,” rather than either of the two facilities listed on the assignment.
Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.140(c), a Motion for judgment on the pleadings raises only questions of law and matters outside the pleadings cannot be considered. At the time Defendant’s Motion was heard, the pleadings on record are devoid of any assignment of benefits made to the Plaintiff, “Partners in Health Palm Beach, Inc.”
Based on the assignment of benefits attached to the Plaintiff’s Complaint, it is clear that the assignment was made to either “Partners in Health” or “Partners in Health Chiropractic Center.” There is no equitable assignment to the named Plaintiff, as the attached assignment clearly indicates the assignment was made to “Partners in Health” or “Partners in Health Chiropractic Center.”
The named Plaintiff, “Partners in Health Palm Beach, Inc.” however, does not have an assignment of benefits attached to the Complaint, and the record is absent of evidence indicating otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the present lawsuit.
The assignment of PIP benefits is not merely a condition precedent to maintaining an action on a claim, but is also the basis of the claimant’s standing to invoke the processes of the court. Progressive Express Insurance Company v. McGrath Community Chiropractic, f/k/a Naples Community Chiropractic, 913 So.2d 1281, 1285, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18252, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D 2622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
According to Florida law, “only the insured or the medical provider ‘owns’ the cause of action against the insurer at any one time. . .and the one that owns the claim must bring the action if an action is to be brought.” Oglesby v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 781 So.2d 469, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Therefore, based upon the Plaintiff’s lack of standing to bring the instant lawsuit, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast v. St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc., 771 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Medical Rehab and Therapy Center d/b/a Pain Corrective Center of Brandon, Inc., as assignee of Shannon Patterson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 605 (13th Circuit Court, July 16, 2001).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Final Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. The Plaintiff, PARTNERS IN HEALTH PALM BEACH, INC. shall take nothing in this action and Plaintiff shall go hence without day. The Court reserves jurisdiction on the issue of attorney fees and costs.
