15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 932c
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment that explicitly states that it is not assignment of any cause of action did not assign right to bring suit to medical provider — Further, demand letter with insufficient assignment attached failed to satisfy condition precedent of submitting valid pre-suit demand letter — Summary judgment granted in favor of insurer
OROZCO MEDICAL CENTER INC., a/a/o MELANI LINARES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, County Civil. Case No. 08-CC-002450-H. July 16, 2008. Eric Myers, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, for Plaintiff. Michael P. Liebgold, Luks, Santaniello, Perez, Petrillo & Gold, Tampa, for Defendant.
[Editor’s note: Motion to set aside order DENIED at 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1216a]
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on July 8, 2008 upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having been otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereupon, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Plaintiff/healthcare provider alleged standing to have filed this suit on the basis of accepting an assignment of benefits from the Defendant PIP insurer’s insured, Melani Linares.
2. However the document that the Plaintiff/healthcare provider relies upon for standing to have filed this suit on behalf of Melani Linares explicitly states that Ms. Linares did not assign the right to bring suit. More specifically, while the text of the subject document appears in lower case, the following clause appears in upper case to make it stand out: “THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES AN ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS AND IS NOT AN ASSIGNMENT OF ANY CAUSE OF ACTION.”
3. The aforementioned document is clearly worded, and explicitly does not assign the right for the Plaintiff/healthcare provider to have brought this suit. See Florida Emergency Physicians Kang & Associates, M.D., P.A., a/a/o Chris Schrack v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 479a (Fla. 9th Circ. Orange Cty. Ct. 2005).
4. As the aforementioned document is clearly worded, this Court will not look outside of the four corners of the document, adhering to Florida’s Parole Evidence Rule.
5. The aforementioned agreement was provided by the Plaintiff and any inconsistencies or ambiguities within it are to be held against the drafter of that agreement.
6. As such, this Court will not rewrite the agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and Melanie Linares.
7. Under Florida law, only one person or entity can possess standing to bring forth a claim in regard to Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Coverage. Oglesby v. State Farm, 781 So.2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), Rose Radiology Centers, Inc. (a/a/o David Hill) v. Progressive Auto Pro Ins. Co., 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1091a (Fla. 13th Jud. Circ. Hillsborough County Ct., August 18, 2005), Cletrus Smith v. State Farm, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 810b (6th Jud. Cir. Appell. Ct., July 9, 2007); Hartford Ins. Co. v. O’Connor, 855 So.2d 189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
8. Without standing to have filed this suit, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
9. In addition, the Plaintiff failed to satisfy a condition precedent to bringing this suit by failing to submit a valid PIP pre-suit demand letter by virtue of attaching the aforementioned document to its PIP pre-suit demand which, as discussed above, withholds the right for the Plaintiff to bring this cause of action.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR AN ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10. Pursuant to Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is an appropriate and necessary means of terminating litigation short of a jury trial and it satisfies the constitutional right of access to the courts as a means of resolving civil disputes. Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258, 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1981). “So long as our system of laws recognizes a dividing line between conduct which may properly require a party to be subjected to the burden of trial and the risk on an adverse jury verdict for damages, and conduct which will not, the trial and appellate courts often have a duty, difficult as the task may be, of drawing that line.” Id. at 261.
11. Summary judgment is properly granted where the moving party conclusively demonstrates that no genuine issues of material fact exist between the parties and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966).
12. Here, as detailed above, the document the Plaintiff/healthcare provider relied on for standing to have brought this suit explicitly withheld the right to bring this cause of action. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff/healthcare provider relied upon the aforementioned document for standing to have brought this suit.
WHEREFORE, as the Plaintiff/healthcare provider lacks the requisite standing to have brought this suit, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED. This Court reserves jurisdiction to determine the Defendant’s entitlement to its attorneys’ fees and costs and the amount thereof.
