15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Insurer’s motion for final judgment on pleadings is denied — No merit to claim that use of abbreviation of medical provider’s name in body of assignment and variation of provider’s name in heading of assignment created confusion or otherwise invalidated assignment — Pleadings allege equitable assignment
PARTNERS IN HEALTH PA LM BEACH, INC., (a/a/o Elusane Joseph), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 07-015827 COCE 56. February 26, 2008. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Russel Lazega, Law Office of Russel Lazega, P.A., North Miami, for Plaintiff. Reuven T. Herssein, Miami Beach, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on February 14, 2008 for hearing of Defendant’s Motion for Final Judgment on the Pleadings, and the Court’s having reviewed the pleadings, heard argument, and being sufficiently apprised of the issues, finds as follows:
Factual Background: This is a P.I.P. case brought by Partners in Health Palm Beach, Inc. On August 16, 2007, the Defendant filed its Motion for Final Judgment on the Pleadings (followed by a motion for sanctions), asserting that the Plaintiff’s written assignment of benefits — made to “Partners in Health Palm Bch” instead of “Partners in Health Palm Beach, Inc.” — was insufficient to convey standing to the Plaintiff, and as such, judgment should be entered in favor of the Defendant on the pleadings. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s assignment of benefits is somehow unclear because the top of the document states “Partners in Health Chiropractic Center.” The Defendant relies upon the decision of Judge Terri-Ann Miller in Partners in Health Palm Beach, Inc. v. Progressive American Ins. Co., 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 984 (Broward Cty. Ct. 2007) in support of its position that final judgment on the pleadings should be entered.
Legal Conclusions: The Court finds the decision in the above case completely distinguishable and inapplicable. Specifically, the decision addressed a different assignment of benefits than the one before the Court in this case. The Court notes that in the cited case the assignment in question (in 3 separate locations) contained the names of entities other than the Plaintiff. Here, a plain reading of the body of the assignment states that the assignment is to “Partners in Health Palm Bch.”
The law in this jurisdiction is well-settled that:
No particular words or special form of words are necessary to effect an assignment in the absence of statutory provisions prescribing a particular mode or form. 6 Am. Jur. Assignment § 114. Any language, however informal, which indicates the intention of the owner of a claim or chose in action to transfer it is sufficient to vest the property in the assignee. In determining whether an assignment has occurred, the courts look to substance, rather than form. Farnsworth, Contracts § 11.3 (1982).
See, e.g., Allstate v. BMW Enterprises, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 95 (17th Cir. Ct.). The assignment may “be made either orally or by a writing.” Id.
The Court finds it unpersuasive that the use of the abbreviated name “Partners in Health Palm Bch” or the heading “Partners in Health Chiropractic Center” may have created confusion, as a matter of law, or otherwise invalidated the assignment of benefits.
Moreover, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must accept the allegations of the complaint to be true as plead. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint pleads that “Claimant equitably assigned to Plaintiff and also executed a written assignment of benefits, assigning to Plaintiff certain rights and benefits payable pursuant to the policy of insurance issued by Defendant.”
In considering equitable assignments, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that:
“courts of equity can recognize certain kinds of instruments as valid equitable asssignments, where it is necessary to effectuate the plain intent of the parties or where to hold otherwise would be unjust. See Morrow v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 118 Fla. 371, 159 So. 525 (1935). No particular 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, if there is valuable consideration, will operate as an effective equitable assignment. Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. Ulery, 149 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). See also McClure v. Century Estates, 96 Fla. 568, 120 So. 4 (1928). As stated in McClure, the true test is whether the debtor would be justified in paying the debt to the person claiming as assignee. 120 So. at 10.
Giles vs. Sun Bank, N.A., 450 So.2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Conclusion: Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Final Judgment on the Pleadings. The intent to assign to Plaintiff is arguable from the document attached to the Complaint (notwithstanding abbreviation of the Plaintiff’s name), and the pleadings clearly allege an equitable assignment. The Defendant’s motion for sanctions is denied as moot.
