15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 189a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Motion for summary judgment asserting that medical provider/professional association lacks standing because assignment is to medical provider personally is denied where factual dispute exists as to intent to form equitable assignment
DAVID E. YACHTER, D.C., P.A., Florida Corporation (assignee of Dorsainvil, Josette), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 07-05007 COSO 61. November 28, 2007. Arlene Joy Simon, Judge. Counsel: Russel Lazega, Law Office of Russel Lazega, P.A., North Miami, for Plaintiff. Frantz Nelson, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment asserting lack of standing because Plaintiff’s assignment in part reads the assignment is to “David E. Yachter D.C,” instead of “David E. Yachter, D.C., P.A.” The Court, having reviewed the motion and heard argument, finds as follows:
Background:This is a multi-count P.I.P. case. Defendant has moved for summary judgment asserting that Plaintiff lacks standing because Plaintiff’s assignment in part reads that the assignment is to “David E. Yachter D.C,” instead of “David E. Yachter, D.C., P.A.” and therefore the claim is non-compensable as Plaintiff lacks standing. Plaintiff has pursued amendment of the Complaint to add an equitable claim against the assignor for reformation of contract to fix the scrivener’s error.
Conclusions of Law:This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that at a minimum a fact dispute exists as to the intent of the parties to form an equitable assignment. In fact, the Plaintiff has amended its suit for Reformation of the Contract to correct the scrivener’s error in the assignment which must be addressed before any Summary Judgment could be entered on the issue of standing. Moreover, this court questions whether Defendant would have standing to challenge the formation of the assignment under the circumstances as it is not a party to the assignment. Martinez Chiropractic Center, Inc. a/a/o Bohdan Kos v. United Automobile Insurance Company, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 187b (17 Jud. Cir. 2006). In consideration of the above, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED. Decision is not with prejudice.
