22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 736b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2206ZELAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Document that assigns both benefits and rights is sufficient to confer standing on medical provider
INTEGRATED HEALTH SOLUTIONS, d/b/a ADVANCED SPINAL CARE CHIROPRACTIC & REHAB OF LAKELAND As assignee of Hilda Zelaya as parent and Guardian of Alejandro Zelaya, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendants. County Court, 10th Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County. Case No. 2014SC-000144-0000-00. June 19, 2014. John E. Kirkland, Judge. Counsel: Brian Hogan and Vanessa Cotto, Hogan Frick, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Daniel Shapiro, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS cause having come before the Court on June 9, 2014, upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court having reviewed the Motion, the Plaintiff’s Response, listened to arguments by counsel for both parties, and having reviewed case law submitted by the Parties as well as the Court’s own research and being fully informed makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On January 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking reimbursement of Personal Injury Protection benefits provided to the minor child of the Defendant’s policy holder one Hilda Zelaya as parent and guardian of the minor child Alejandro Zelaya.
2. The policy holder executed an “assignment of benefits” (See attached Exhibit 1) which purported to act as an actual or defacto assignment of benefit under her policy with the Defendant for medical treatment furnished to her minor child by the Plaintiff.
3. On February 12, 2014 the Defendant was properly served with the Complaint.
4. On February 14, 2014 both Parties appeared through counsel at PreTrial Conference. The Rules of Civil Procedure were invoked except RCP 7.11(E)
5. On March 3, 2014 and Order was entered which confirmed the PTC memorandum and allowed twenty (20) days from the date of the Order for the Defendant to file an Answer.
6. The Defendant elected instead to file the current Motion to Dismiss on March 4, 2014.
7. The Plaintiff filed a Response to the Defendant’s Motion on April 4, 2014.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The legal issue before the Court is whether the “assignment” executed by the policy holder returned by the Plaintiff in the Complaint is sufficient to confer upon the Plaintiff the right to sue to collect the insurance PIP benefits under the Defendant’s policy.
The Defendant’s contention is that the “Assignment of Benefit” does not assign “all rights” under the insurance policy, only the right to collect payment and that the Plaintiff lacks “standing” to pursue this action. (See Paragraph 4 of Defendant’s Motion)
Florida law does not require any formal language to constitute an assignment of benefits. The question in determining whether an assignment exists is the intent of the Parties. See Boulevard Nat. Bank of Miami v. Air Metal Industries, Inc. at 176 So. 2d. 94, 97(Fla. 1965). In It’s Motion, the Defendant referred to only part of the language in the “Assignment” but neglected to state the following section:
“In the event an insurer fails to pay Advanced Spinal Care of Lakeland the full amount of the treatment allowed by current fee schedules, I authorize and direct the insurer to set aside escrow an amount equal to the full amount of any such reduction until Advanced Spinal Care of Lakeland has exercised its rights under this assignment and the dispute is settled.
Thus it is clear that both “benefits” and rights were assigned in the case at hand. An assignee may enforce payments or the performance of an obligation due under an assigned contract. See State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. May at 556 So.2d. 811(Fla. 5th Dist. 1990). For a medical provider to bring an action for PIP benefits, the insured must assign his or her right to such benefits under the policy to the medical provider. The assignment is the basis of the claiment’s standing to involve the processes of the Court. See Progressive Express Insurance Company v. McGrath Community Chiropractic at 913 So. 2d. 1281(Fla. 2nd DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2622b].
Since the assignment conferred both “benefits” and “rights”, then this Court finds it sufficient to allow standing by the Plaintiff.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
* * *
