17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 592a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1707CEGAInsurance — Standing — Assignment — Court will overlook clerical error in name of medical provider/assignee in assignment where error does not go to substance of assignment — Motion for summary judgment regarding lack of standing is denied
CEGA STRESS & ESTHETIC CENTER, INC. a/a/o JULIAN MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 09-CC-15102, Division M. February 25, 2010. Donald C. Evans, Senior Judge. Counsel: Steven T. Sock, Law Office of Gonzalez & Associates, LLC, Brandon for Plaintiff. Tara Zimmerman, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT — LACK OF STANDING
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on January 19, 2010, upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s Lack of Standing, and argument having been heard by this Court, and having been fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. The Defendant moves for summary judgment, alleging the Plaintiff does not have standing to initiate the present action as the purported assignment was made to “Cega Esthetic Center,” not to the named Plaintiff, “Cega Stress & Esthetic Center, Inc.”
2. The Plaintiff contends that any ambiguity concerning the identity of a party can only be resolved by a determination of the relationship between and the intent of the entities party to the assignment; and that factual dispute is a material fact precluding summary judgment.
3. The Defendant contends that the court shall not rewrite an agreement where the terms are unambiguous and the parties’ intent must be determined within the four corners of the document.
4. This Court finds that the Assignment of Benefits is not ambiguous as it is clearly to “Cega Esthetic Center,” the Plaintiff is not asking the Court to construe the assignment but rather to overlook a clerical error that does not go to the substance of the assignment, and denial of the motion for summary judgment would not be a reconstruction of the document.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s Lack of Standing is hereby DENIED.
