21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 352b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2104PAREInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Instruction to pay medical provider all applicable medical benefits confers standing
CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING A/A/O SARA PAREDES, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 12-1967 SP 24. December 23, 2013. Rodolfo Ruiz, Judge. Counsel: Adam Saben, Miami, for Plaintiff. Holly Miller, Deerfield Beach, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINALSUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO STANDING
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on October 3, 2013 on Defendant’s, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (“State Farm”), Motion for Final Summary Judgment as to the issue of standing, and the Court having considered the Motion, applicable law, arguments of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the issue of standing is hereby DENIED for the reasons set forth herein.
BACKGROUND
This case involves unpaid personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits brought by the medical provider/assignee, Center for Diagnostic Imaging, based on an assignment of benefits tendered by the patient/assignor, Sara Paredes, The assignment, a one-page document executed on September 12, 2011, contains a paragraph entitled “Assignment of Benefits,” which states, in pertinent part:
“I hereby assign payment to the Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Ltd., of all medical benefits applicable and otherwise payable to me by my insurance carrier, including HMO, PPO, or any other third-party payer, for services rendered at CDI facility. I understand that I am financially responsible to the Center for Diagnostic Imaging, LTD., for charges not covered by this assignment or for any and all charges which the carrier declines to pay.”
State Farm maintains the assignment is insufficient to confer standing upon the Plaintiff, and as a result the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this lawsuit. Specifically, State Farm posits that although the subject paragraph is titled “Assignment of Benefits,” the only right being assigned is the right to receive “payment” — not any and all rights and liabilities under the insurance contract that would grant the Plaintiff standing. Consequently, the issue before the Court is whether the language of the paragraph above indicates the parties’ intent to create a full assignment of benefits.
ANALYSIS
Under Florida law, an insured may assign his or her right to benefits under a contract of insurance. See Hartford Ins. Co. of Southeast v. St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc., 771 So. 2d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2523a]; USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Romm, 712 So. 2d 405, 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D804a]. An assignment transfers to the assignee all interests of the assignor in the property or the right to make a claim thereon, and “[c]ourts have recognized that medical service providers can assert claims for PIP benefits against insurers when an insured has assigned them the right to the benefits.” Id. (citing Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 393 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)). The effect of such an assignment is to place the insured’s cause of action for such benefits in the provider, and “only the insured or the medical provider ‘owns’ the cause of action against the insurer at any one time.” Oglesby v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 781 So. 2d 469, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D702a]; see also Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. McGrath Comm. Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2622b] (holding that “the assignment of PIP benefits is not merely a condition precedent to maintaining an action on a claim” but also “the basis of the claimant’s standing to invoke the processes of the court”).
Although Defendant maintains that a valid assignment must specifically assign “benefits” and not “payment,” Florida law makes clear that there is no distinction between a direction to pay and an assignment of benefits for purposes of standing. See, e.g., Orion Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Systems I, 696 So. 2d 475, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) [22 Fla. L. Weekly D1595c] (finding valid assignment where provider’s customers authorized “direct payment of their insurance benefits” to provider); Parkway, 393 So. 2d at 1172 (finding valid assignment where insured “authorized insurer to make direct payment to hospital of any benefits” arising from policy); Schuster v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 843 So. 2d 909, 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)1 [28 Fla. L. Weekly D505a] (finding language authorizing insurer to make payment directly to provider, but stating that insured would remain financially responsible for any amounts not paid, served as unqualified assignment); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gonnella, 677 So. 2d 1355, 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D1799d] (holding assignment existed where insured allowed provider to receive direct payment of benefits from insurer); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Ray, 556 So. 2d 811, 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (finding language entitled “Irrevocable Assignment of Benefits” that “set forth the transfer of any proceeds” constituted valid assignment).
Here, just as in the aforementioned cases, the assignment is an instruction to pay the provider all applicable medical benefits, and contains the same features as the assignments addressed in Orion, Schuster, Ray, et al. Consequently, the language at issue unequivocally confers standing upon the Plaintiff. Moreover, the case law above does not require the inclusion of additional language specifically granting the provider “benefits” or the “right to bring a lawsuit” in the event proper payments are not made. Said verbiage is simply not required to convey standing given that there is no legal distinction between a “direction to pay” and an “assignment of benefits.” See Professional Diagnostic Reading v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 700a (Broward Cty. Court, Apr. 16, 2013); Advanced MRI Diagnostic v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 599a (Duval Cty. Court, Dec. 14, 2012).2CONCLUSION
Given that the assignment in this case is valid, and therefore Plaintiff has standing to bring suit, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the issue of standing is DENIED.
__________________
1The Court notes that it was provided with copies of the two assignments introduced into evidence in Schuster, and compared the relevant language of these assignments to the assignment of benefits in this case. The assignments are nearly identical in title and scope; both include strikingly similar direction-to-pay clauses and do not include any language conveying an additional right to file a lawsuit in the event benefits go unpaid.
2In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that even if the Court were to find the instant assignment invalid, it should still find standing pursuant to an equitable assignment. See McGrath, 913 So. 2d at 1288 (Davis, J., specially concurring in judgment) (holding that equitable assignment can be found if a written instrument demonstrates the parties’ intent to convey an interest from the patient to the provider). The Court need not reach this issue, as it is clear that the assignment at issue confers standing.
* * *
