20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1085a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2011AGRAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Document that assigns PIP benefits is valid assignment — Even if express assignment did not exist, equitable assignment confers standing on medical provider
ADVANCED 3D DIAGNOSTICS A/A/O GUILERMO AGRAMONTE, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2012-SC-11286O. September 3, 2013. Adam McGinnis, Judge. Counsel: Adam Saben, Shuster & Saben, Miami, for Plaintiff. Dina Piedra, Adams & Diaco, P.A., for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONTO DISMISS AS TO STANDING
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for hearing, on Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Counter-Motions for Summary Judgment, and the Court having considered the motion, court file, applicable law and the arguments of counsel, finds as follows:
This is a case where the Plaintiff, a medical provider, performed medical services for the claimant and submitted its bill to the Defendant for payment. The Plaintiff disputes the amount paid. The Defendant’s position is that the Plaintiff has no standing to bring a cause of action for its bill at issue.
The Plaintiff seeks standing to bring this case through its Assignment of Benefits, contained within is the following language:
“The undersigned patient hereby assigns the benefits of insurance under the automobile insurance with [Defendant] to [Plaintiff], for services rendered to the undersigned patient and covered by Personal Injury Protection (P.I.P.) Coverage under [Insured’s] Policy with [Defendant].
The undersigned hereby accepts assignment of insurance benefits for services rendered to [Insured’s] Personal Injury Protection (P.I.P.) [sic] coverage with [Defendant] and in accordance with Florida Statute 267.736(5) [sic].”
The Defendant argues that the above language creates a “mere” direction to pay from the Defendant/insurer to the Plaintiff/provider, yet said language fails to create a right for said provider to enforce that right by failing to convey standing to bring a cause of action. Based on a review of the facts in the case and a review of the relevant case law, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has standing to bring this case. This ruling is based on the following legal and factual analysis:
THE PLAINTIFF IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
The party bringing the claim must be the real party in interest. That is, whether the best parties are before the Court to properly litigate the issues in a given case. The real party in interest is “the person in whom rests, by substantive law, the claim sought to be enforced” Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D680a]. In this case, the Plaintiff, ADVANCED 3D, is in the best position to litigate the merits of its case against the Defendant. The Plaintiff has a real interest in getting its bill paid. It is the one that submitted the claim and it is the one seeking its enforcement.
The Plaintiff can best argue that its services were medically necessary, reasonable, and/or medically related; its bills were timely submitted; and, any other relevant issues in this case. Further, the Plaintiff, not the claimant, is the one who took affirmative action to get its bill paid, by filing this lawsuit. Assuming that the claimant wanted to file suit, the benefits sought would be tendered to the Plaintiff since, according to the Defendant, the claimant signed a direction to pay. Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is the real party in interest and the proper litigant to prosecute this claim. Also see, Advanced MRI a/a/o Anthony Mayo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 599a. (finding the MRI provider has standing with an identical assignment of benefits).
EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT
“No particular words or form of instrument is necessary to effect an equitable assignment and any language, however informal, which shows an intention on one side to assign a right or chose in action and an intention on the other to receive, if there is valuable consideration, will operate as an effective equitable assignment.” Giles v. Sun Bank, N.A., 450 So.2d 258, 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In this case, the facts indicate that there is an equitable assignment of benefits (assuming an express assignment didn’t exist) for the facts as stated above. Defendant relies on Open MRI of Orlando, Inc., a/a/o Raquel Ramos v. State Farm, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 731a (9th Jud Cir. App. 2010) in finding that there is no assignment in this case, however, the Ninth Judicial Circuit found that the Plaintiff in Ramos never pled equitable assignment in its Complaint. In our case, the Plaintiff pled, in the alternative of an express assignment of benefits, there was, at least, an equitable assignment of benefits. Therefore, this Court finds that there is an express assignment of benefits that conveys standing, and, further, even if one did not exist, there is, at least, an equitable assignment, which conveys standing to the Plaintiff.
THEREFORE, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
* * *
