17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1117a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1711MRODInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Where language of document captioned as assignment only grants “money,” not rights and liabilities under insurance contract, document is direction to pay, not assignment
V.R. MASSAGE & THERAPY CENTER, INC., a/a/o MAURICIO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 09 CC 5400 SC, Division: H. April 14, 2010. Eric R. Myers, Judge. Counsel: James Collins, Gonzalez and Associates, Brandon, for Plaintiff. Joseph G. Sapp, Oxendine and Oxendine, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on March 24, 2010, on Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal and, after hearing argument of counsel, having reviewed the file herein and after hearing argument of counsel and supporting law, and being otherwise fully apprised in the premises, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff medical provider brought this cause of action for Personal Injury Protection benefits allegedly due for treatment rendered to the Defendant’s insured, Maricio Rodriguez.
2. Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract for failure to pay benefits. The basis for filing is the allegation contained in paragraph eleven of the complaint which reads: “Plaintiff has preformed all conditions precedent to entitle Plaintiff to recover benefits for said necessary medical, rehabilitative, and remedial treatment for Date of Service 02/21/08 through 07/16/08.”
3. Attached to the complaint was the document entitled“Release of Records/Payment Agreement & Assignment of Benefits” executed by the insured on or about February 21, 2008. This document contains three paragraphs and corresponding subheadings.
4. The second paragraph of this document captioned “Payment Agreement” provides, in pertinent part:
“All charges are due at the time of service, unless other agreements have been made in advance. All professional services rendered are charged to the patient and the patient is responsible for all fees regardless of insurance coverage. . .I will bear the expense of collection and/or costs, and reasonable legal fees, should this be required.”
5. The third paragraph captioned “Assignment of Benefits” the following sentence appears:
“I hereby assign to VR Massage & Therapy Center my Health Car Provider/Facility, all money to which I am entitled for medically related expenses, received at, or through the above mentioned facility.”
(Emphasis added).
6. Defendant filed this Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the document attached to the complaint was insufficient to serve as an assignment of all rights and liabilities under an insurance contract to enable Plaintiff to maintain this cause of action.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7. A motion to dismiss is a question of law which tests the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s complaint. It is well settled law, that all reasonable inferences in the complaint are to be taken as true and a court is not to look beyond the four corners of the pleadings in making its decision on a motion to dismiss. However, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130, all documents attached to the complaint shall be incorporated and be considered part thereof. “Moreover, if such attached document is inconsistent with or negates the allegations of the complaint, the facts revealed by the document controls and neutralizes those contrary allegations and further renders the complaint objectionable.” Kent Electric Co. v. Jacksonville Electric Authority, 395 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
8. The analysis of the Court begins with the general proposition that a medical provider does not have standing unless the insured has executed an assignment all rights and benefits under a contract of insurance in favor of the provider bringing suit.
9. The Court has also carefully reviewed the following cases provided by Counsel: Physicians Center v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 169a (13th Cir. Hillsborough Cty. Ct. 2002); Darshan Aggarwal, M.D., P.A. a/a/o Rodney Jones v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 812a (19th Cir. St. Lucie Cty. Ct. 2005); Clinic Health Services, Inc. a/a/o Rosa Fitzsimmons v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 642c (13th Cir. Hillsborough Cty. Ct. 2003); Darshan Aggarwal, M.D., -P.A. a/a/o Sabrina Jones v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 813a (19th Cir. St. Lucie Cty. Ct. 2005); Orthopaedic Associates of South Broward, P.A. a/a/o Georgian McCarthy-Walker v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 565a (17th Cir. Broward Cty. Ct. 2003); Abby Chiropractic Center a/a/o Linda Leonard v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 50b (13th Cir. Hillsborough Cty. Ct. 2003). Each of case addresses the issue of whether the document relied on by the Plaintiff to grant standing constitutes an assignment of benefits or direction to pay.
10. The contents and specific language of the document attached to the Complaint was examined by the Court. Despite the caption of the document containing the words assignment of benefit, this, in and of itself does not automatically confer it status as such. It is the contents of a writing that defines its status and determines the rights of its parties. In the context of an assignment of benefits, it is this document that determines whether the Plaintiff’s claim has life. The language of this document must be read in its entirety in order to determine whether it truly assigns the right to bring a cause of action in its name. Dareshan Aggarwal, M.D., P.A. a/a/o Rodney Jones v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 812a (19th Cir. St. Lucie Cty. Ct. 2005). As the document itself is clear and unambiguous, the determination of its status is purely a question of law which rests solely within the sound discretion of the Trial Court.
11. The intent of any assignment within this document is interpreted by its terms and plain meaning. Specifically, the language of assignment only grants “money”. Nowhere within the four corners of this document is any language purporting to assigning any and all rights and liabilities under an insurance contract that would grant standing in the Plaintiff. The only thing truly being assigned is the right to receive payment, and to grant a right not contemplated by the language of the document. See Orthopaedic Associates of South Broward, P.A. a/a/o Georgian McCarthy-Walker v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 565a (17th Cir. Broward Cty. Ct. 2003) (“What is being assigned? Payment only is being assigned, not rights or benefits; to interpret the wording otherwise would be to ignore standard rules of grammatical construction. The object of the verb “assign” is the noun “payment”, with the phrase commencing with the conjunction “of” being an adjectival clause describing what payments are.”).
12. As this document only assigns the right to receive payment, it serves merely as the functional equivalent of a direction to pay. Id. (“An assignment of benefits is the functional equivalent of a direction to pay.”). The plain language of this document is not indicative of the parties intent to create a full assignment of benefits, but merely a direction to pay. There is no language within the four corners of this writing to indicate that it is anything more. Therefore, there is no need for this Court to inquire further as to the intent of the parties.
It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
That based upon the foregoing it is in the Court’s finding that Plaintiff, V.R. MASSAGE AND THERAPY CENTER INC. did not possess an assignment of benefits from the Defendant’s insured based upon the document attached to the complaint. The terms of the writing are indicative of a direction to pay, and as such, negates Plaintiff’s allegation of standing in order to maintain this cause of action against STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. The Court hereby grants STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing.
The Court further finds that the dismissal is without prejudice. Moreover, there will be no leave to amend the Complaint in this action based upon Plaintiff’s inability to maintain an action against this Defendant based upon the current document attached to this Complaint.
FINAL JUDGMENT
The Court enters final judgment in favor of the Defendant and Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action and the Defendant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY shall go hence without delay.
This Court reserves jurisdiction to consider claims for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
