16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 102b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — No merit to argument that assignment assigned benefits but not cause of action — Insurer was not obligated to furnish PIP log to medical provider — Insurer’s provision of declarations page and policy to insured at inception of claim did not satisfy obligation to furnish provider with copy of policy requested in demand letter — Claim form is defective for failing to include medical license number in box 31 — Presuit demand letter is not defective for being sent to different address of insurer
OROZCO MEDICAL CENTER, INC. (As Assignee of Maria Valdez), Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 07-37122, Division L. October 30, 2008. Joelle Ann Ober, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, for Plaintiff. Michael Liebgold, for Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on October 1, 2008 on the parties’ competing Motions for Summary Judgment. Present before the Court were Timothy A. Patrick for the Plaintiff and Michael Liebgold, attorney for the Defendant. The Court after having heard argument of counsel, having reviewed the record and for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in open court,
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment alleged that Plaintiff’s Assignment of Benefits was defective inasmuch as it only assigned the benefits, but not the cause of action. The court finds that the Assignment of Benefits is sufficient to sustain a cause of action.
2. Defendant’s motion concerning the failure of a PIP Payout Log is GRANTED. Plaintiff did not file a Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue and did not contest this issue.
3. Defendant’s motion concerning the failure to timely provide a copy of the insurance policy after a Pre-Suit Demand Letter request is HEREBY DENIED.
4. Defendant’s motion argued that by providing a copy of the Declaration page and insurance policy to its insured at the inception of its claim, an assignee medical provider stands in the shoes of the assignor and that, knowledge of the contents of the insurance policy can be imputed from the insured to the medical provider assignee. The court finds there is no reason to change its previous position on this issue in the absence of appellate law to the contrary.
5. Defendant’s motion as to Count II — breach of contract is HEREBY GRANTED. The court agrees with Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s medical bills do not contain the required license number in Box 31 of the bills.
6. Defendant’s motion alleging a failure to satisfy a condition precedent and that Plaintiff’s Pre-Suit Demand Letter is defective as it was not sent to the proper address of the Defendant is HEREBY DENIED. The court follows the intent of the statute and finds that the statute does not preclude sending the Pre-Suit Demand Letter to a different address of the Defendant.
7. The court denies both parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of the failure to timely provide EOB’s to the Plaintiff.
8. The court reserves jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s failure to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Declarations page and insurance policy pursuant to a Pre-Suit Demand Letter request.
