20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1082a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2011JEANInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Document that assigns benefits but fails to transfer insured’s rights in PIP policy is direction to pay, not assignment — No merit to argument that insurer lacks standing to challenge assignment where insurer is not challenging validity of agreement between insured and medical provider, but contesting that agreement constitutes assignment — Motion to dismiss is granted
ADVANCED 3-D DIAGNOSTIC, a/a/o ZIKY JEANNESTIN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2012-SC-008040-O. July 23, 2013. Honorable Wilfredo Martinez, Judge. Counsel: Adam B. Saben, Shuster & Saben, LLC, Miami, for Plaintiff. Matthew J. Corker, Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, PA, Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE, having come before this Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on March 4, 2013 and on June 5, 2013, and the Court having reviewed the motion, responses in opposition, the Court file, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed a single count complaint alleging breach of contract for State Farm’s alleged failure to pay for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for date of service 2/6/09 resulting from an automobile accident which occurred on 5/4/09.
2. Plaintiff attached to its complaint a document which Plaintiff purported to be an assignment of contractual rights and benefits under the policy of insurance that Ziky Jeannestin held with State Farm. This document was received by the Court into evidence.
3. At the hearings listed above, State Farm contended that the purported assignment of benefits did not vest Plaintiff with the insured’s right to sue, but only directed State Farm to make payment directly to Advanced 3-D Diagnostics.
4. To establish standing under a breach of contract alleging failure of an insurer to pay PIP benefits, the medical provider must demonstrate that it has a valid assignment of benefits giving it the right to bring a cause of action at the time the action is filed.
5. Absent standing, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
6. This Court agrees with Defendant that the document in this lawsuit upon which Plaintiff claims standing to sue and maintain this action is not an assignment of benefits, but merely a direction to pay.
7. The Court finds that the purported assignment of benefits does not transfer any rights, liability or causes of action under the insurance contract that would grant standing to the Plaintiff.
8. Nowhere within the four corners of the document is any language purporting to assign any right to sue. The only thing being assigned is the right to receive payment from State Farm.
9. The document entitled “Assignment of Benefits” states:
“The undersigned patient hereby assigns the benefits of insurance under the automobile insurance with (insurance company name): State Farm to Advanced 3-D Imaging for services rendered to the undersigned patient and covered by Personal Injury Protection (P.I.P.) Coverage under (Owner’s Name) Ziky Jeannestin.
In accordance with Florida Statute §627.736(5), the undersigned further agrees to pay an applicable deductible or co-payment not covered by P.I.P. insurance coverage.
The undersigned hereby accept assignments of insurance benefits rendered to (Patient’s Name): Ziky Jeannestin and to be paid directly to me under (Insurer’s Name): Ziky Jeannestin Personal Injury Protection (P.I.P.) coverage with (Insurance Company Name): State Farm in accordance with Florida Statute §627.736.”
10. Based upon the language of this document, Plaintiff cannot and will not be able to establish standing in this matter. The language contained in Plaintiff’s alleged assignment of benefits fails to transfer to the Plaintiff the insured’s rights in his contract of automobile insurance and is merely a direction to pay the provider for services rendered to the insured. Open MRI of Orlando, Inc. a/a/o Rafael Ramos v. State Farm, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 731a (Cir. Ct., 9th Jud. Cir. (Appellate), Orange County, Case No. CVAI 07-73; L.C. Case No. 2005-SC-5270, 4/16/10).
11. Accordingly, “only the insured or the medical provider (ours) the cause of action against the insurer at any one time . . . and the one that has the claim must bring the action if an action is to be brought.” Oglesby v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 781 So.2d 469, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D702a].
12. As stated earlier, as standing is equated with subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff in this case lacks standing to assert a claim for personal injury protection benefits. Askew v. Hotel the Bulkhead Save Au Bays, Inc., 269 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Silver Star Citizens’ Committee v. City Council of Orlando, 194 So.2d 681, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Accordingly, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Hartford Insurance Company of the South East v. St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc., 771 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2523a]; Medical Rehab & Therapy Center d/b/a Pain Corrective Center of Brandon, Inc., as assignee of Shannon Patterson, Appellee, (8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 605a) (13th Jur. Cir./Appellate).
13. As to the assignment, this Court finds same to be unambiguous. The assignment language simply assigns all benefits due under the policy, but fails to transfer to Plaintiff the insured’s rights in her insurance contract. See, Fla. Emergency Physicians Kang & Assoc., M.D., P.A., a/a/o Chris Schrack v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 479a (Fla. 7th Cir. Ct. 2003). Additionally, all of the cases cited by Plaintiff finding the express language of an assignment are distinguishable from the instant case, and because the assignment was merely a directive to pay Plaintiff directly, Plaintiff did not have standing to sue on behalf of Ziky Jeannestin. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
14. The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant lacks standing to challenge standing is misguided and misplaced. Here, Defendant is not challenging the agreement between Plaintiff and the insured. Rather, Defendant is only raising the issue of whether that agreement was properly characterized as an assignment of all benefits vesting Plaintiff with standing to bring suit for an alleged breach of contract.
15. Put another way, Defendant is assuming the validity of the agreement (i.e., that the insured wants the Plaintiff to get paid directly by Defendant for services rendered). But, Defendant is contesting that this agreement amounted to an assignment vesting it with standing and the right to sue.
16. Since Defendant did not challenge the validity of the agreement between the parties (Defendant’s insured and the Plaintiff), that Defendant would be directed to pay Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s argument is misguided, and is rejected by the Court. It should be noted that, if taken on its illogical conclusion, Plaintiff’s argument would preclude any Defendant from raising the issue of standing in any case where the Plaintiff’s alleged right to bring suit is predicated on a written instrument attached to the Complaint. Obviously, only the party against whom litigation is brought may raise the issue of whether the party bringing suit has the legal right to sue that party. Who else could ever question the Plaintiff’s standing to bring suit? Indeed, if insureds were the only defendants who could not raise a party’s standing to sue it, which would deny only insurers the due process rights afforded all other litigants.
17. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff does not have standing to file the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED.
* * *
