16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 690b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 167SULLI
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Insured did not have standing to file suit for PIP benefits where insured signed unqualified assignment of benefits to medical provider and did not revoke assignment prior to filing suit
PATRICIA E. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2007-CC-21795. May 18, 2009. William T. McCluan, Judge. Counsel: George Milev, Adams & Diaco, P.A., Tampa. Jack Platt.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on April 14, 2009, on Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard arguments of counsel for Plaintiff and for Defendant, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby FINDS, ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows:
1. This is an action for alleged breach of automobile insurance contract and for declaratory relief.
2. Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on April 11, 2006 and as a result sustained injuries and received medical treatment.
3. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant claiming reductions or non-payment of bills submitted for subject treatment.
4. At issue in this lawsuit are bills by Beach Medical Imaging.
5. Plaintiff signed during its first visit with Beach Medical Imaging a document titled “ASSIGNMENT OF INSURANCE BENEFITS, POWER OF ATTORNEY AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION”.
6. It is undisputed that the document was in effect and had not been revoked as of the date of the filing of the current lawsuit.
7. The assignment of benefits reads in its substantive part:
I, the undersigned patient/insured knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally assign the benefits of insurance and any over due interest payments under the No-Fault Policy of Automobile Insurance, also known as Personal Injury Protection (P.I.P.), or Medical payments policy of insurance from my automobile insurer or the responsible insurer to the above described medical provider for any and all services rendered to the undersigned patient/insured. The patient understands it is the express intention of the provider to accept this assignment of benefits in lieu of demanding payment at the time services are rendered. The undersigned assigns any and all claims for statutory bad faith to the above medical provider. If the insurer disputes the validity of the assignment of benefits then the insurer is instructed to notify the provider in writing within five (5) days of receipt of the document. I understand this assignment will remain in full force and effect and will NOT be revoked unless the revocation is agreed to by both the medical provider and the undersigned patient or the patient’s attorney. This assignment applies to both past and future medical expenses and is valid even if undated. A photocopy of this assignment is to be considered as valid as the original. The undersigned patient/insured directs the insurer to pay the medical provider directly without including the patient’s name on the check.
8. The language of that document is clear and unambiguous.
9. The Court finds this to be an unqualified assignment of medical benefits.
10. When an alleged assignment of benefits is unambiguous, the construction of the terms of that assignment is a question of law for the court. See Peacock Construction Co. Inc. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., 353 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1977).
11. In the absence of ambiguity in a document, the language itself is the best evidence of a party’s intent and its plain meaning controls. See Burns v. Barfield, 732 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
12. “Only the insured or the medical provider “owns” the cause of action against the insurer at any time. And the one that owns the claim must bring the action.” Oglesby v. State Farm, 781 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
13. The Court finds that Plaintiff did not have standing to file lawsuit for bills submitted by Beach Medical Imaging while the document titled “ASSIGNMENT OF INSURANCE BENEFITS, POWER OF ATTORNEY AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION” was in effect.
WHEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff shall take nothing from this action and Defendant shall hence go without day. The Court reserves jurisdiction for purposes of any applicable motions for attorney’s fees and/or costs.
