20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1214a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2012CARTInsurance — Homeowners — Standing — Assignment — Company that provided water removal and construction services on homeowner’s property does not have standing to bring action against insurer where purported assignment of benefits clearly provides that insured retains all insurance rights, benefits and proceeds under policy — Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend
RESTORATION 1 OF MIAMI, INC., (A/A/O CARTER, DIANNE), Plaintiff, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court, 19th Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County, Civil Division. Case No. 12-1696 CA. September 17, 2013. Honorable James W. McCann, Judge. Counsel: Michael Grossman, Cohen Battisti, Attorneys at Law, Winter Park, for Plaintiff. Max M. Nelson, Herssein Law Group, North Miami, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’SMOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENTBASED ON PLAINTIFF’S INVALID ASSIGNMENTOF BENEFITS AND LACK OF STANDING
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on August 28, 2013 for hearing on USAA Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, which was filed on or around June 20, 2013. The Court having reviewed the briefs, the Court file, the relevant legal authorities, having heard oral argument, and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff Restoration 1 of Miami, Inc. filed a one-count breach of contract lawsuit against USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”) for allegedly providing “necessary, emergency water removal services and construction services” for USAA’s insured, Dianne Carter, after she reported water damage to her dwelling on or around December 22, 2011. It is undisputed that USAA never paid Plaintiff directly in connection with this claim. USAA issued three checks in connection with the claim, all directed to its insured, Dianne Carter. See Copy of Checks, filed on or around December 11, 2012.
Plaintiff attached a document to its Complaint titled “Assignment of Benefits” and claimed standing through this written assignment. Compl., ¶ 3 & Ex. A. The assignment states that “I hereby assign any and all insurance rights, benefits, and proceeds under the above referenced policy to my repair facility, G. Dianne Carter. I hereby authorize direct payment of any benefits of proceeds to my repair facility, 2929 SE Ocean Blvd K4,” Dr. Carter’s address. USAA’s Third Affirmative Defense, filed and served along with its Answer on or around February 6, 2013, is that “Plaintiff alleges standing by way of an assignment of benefits from the insured, Dianne Carter, to the Plaintiff, Restoration 1 of Miami, Inc. However, the purported assignment of benefits that Plaintiff attaches to its Complaint as Exhibit ‘A’ only directs and authorizes Defendant to release information requested by Plaintiff relating to the claim. Under this purported assignment, Dianne Carter retains all insurance rights and benefits, including the right to file and maintain this lawsuit. Therefore, Plaintiff lacks standing.”
On or around June 20, 2013, USAA served and filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment premised on Plaintiff’s invalid assignment of benefits and lack of standing. In it, USAA argued that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring and maintain this breach of contract lawsuit because according to the unambiguous terms of the document attached to the Complaint, Dianne Carter retained her rights under the insurance policy at issue. Moreover, USAA argued that it was entitled to summary judgment based on the facts that were admitted and conclusively established in light of a May 10, 2013 Order deeming Defendant’s Requests for Admissions Admitted, by virtue of Plaintiff’s failure to respond within thirty days of service. Plaintiff did not file a response brief or summary judgment evidence prior to the special set hearing on USAA’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment based on lack of standing, held on August 28, 2013.
RATIONALE AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RULING
The Court finds that the document titled “Assignment of Insurance Benefits” attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint is unambiguous and plain language therefore controls. Burns v. Barfield, 732 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D1159b] (“[W]here the terms of a contract are unambiguous, the parties’ intent must be determined from within the four corners of the document.”); see also Michael A. Abrahams, M.D., P.A. (a/a/o Rachel Newell) v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 934b (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. June 14, 2004); accord V.R. Massage & Therapy Center, Inc. (a/a/o Mauricio Rodriguez) v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1117a (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. County Court, Apr. 14, 2010) (“Despite the caption of the document containing the words assignment of benefit, this, in and of itself does not automatically confer its status as such. It is the contents of a writing that defines its status and determines the rights of its parties.”).
The Court finds that the plain language of the document titled “Assignment of Insurance Benefits” makes clear that Dr. Carter retains all insurance rights, benefits, and proceeds under the applicable policy of insurance. Only one party at a time may “own” a cause of action against an insurer at a time, and therefore Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this suit. See Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. McGrath Comm. Chiro., 913 So. 2d 1281, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2622b].
Without standing, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s claim. See, e.g., Hartford Ins. Co. v. St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc., 771 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2523a]. In determining that the document attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint is not an assignment of benefits and does not confer standing for Plaintiff to file or maintain this lawsuit, the Court will enter final summary judgment for Defendant, and will not grant Plaintiff leave to amend. See V.R. Massage & Therapy Center, Inc. (a/a/o Mauricio Rodriguez) v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1117a (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. County Court, Apr. 14, 2010) (“[T]here 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.”). Indeed, standing must exist pre-suit, and is not a defect that can be cured after the time suit is filed. Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. McGrath Cmty Chiro., 913 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2622b].
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that USAA’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED. This case is hereby DISMISSED, without leave to amend. The Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action and the Defendant shall go hence without day. Defendant is the prevailing party in this action. Accordingly, the Court RESERVES jurisdiction to determine attorney’s fees and costs owed to Defendant.
* * *
