22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 717a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2206DURGInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Document that assigns all benefits and rights from automobile insurance policies is valid assignment that confers standing
NEW SMYRNA IMAGING, LLC, as assignee of Randy Durgin, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2014 20922 CONS. October 21, 2014. Robert A. Sanders, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Mark A. Cederberg, Bradford Cederberg, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Scharome R. Wolfe, Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS MATTER having come before this Honorable Court on October 15, 2014 on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss bearing certificate of service date June 2, 2014 and this Honorable Court having heard arguments of counsel, having reviewed the court file and having reviewed the applicable law and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff, New Smyrna Imaging, LLC, as assignee of Randy Durgin (“New Smryna Imaging”) provided medical services (specifically MRI of the lumbar spine without contrast) to Randy Durgin (“Durgin”) on June 27, 2013 following a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 26, 2013.
In exchange for the medical services provided by New Smyrna Imaging to Durgin on June 27, 2013, Durgin executed an “Assignment of Benefits” form in favor of New Smyrna Imaging.
A bill was submitted by New Smyrna Imaging to Durgin’s auto insurance carrier, Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) for the medical services rendered to Durgin on June 27, 2013 and the bill went unpaid.
On December 9, 2013, a pre-suit demand letter was sent to State Farm on behalf of New Smyrna Imaging seeking payment for the medical services rendered to Durgin on June 27, 2013.
On February 11, 2014, State Farm issued limited reimbursement of New Smyrna Imaging’s bill and provided an Explanation of Review confirming that the payment for the medical services provided, amongst other things, was “based upon 200% of the 2007 Limiting Charge of Medicare physician fee schedule for the locale in which the services were rendered.”
On March 31, 2014, New Smyrna Imaging filed the instant lawsuit seeking payment of the difference between 80% of the charged amount for the medical services provided to Durgin on June 27, 2013 and the limited reimbursement previously provided by State Farm.
On June 2, 2014, State Farm filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that Plaintiff’s assignment of benefits is “deficient” and therefore Plaintiff “does not have standing to bring this action based on the language contained in the purported AOB.”
On October 15, 2014 a hearing was held on State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss. State Farm argued that the assignment of benefits at issue was simply a direction to pay and that it did not confer the right under the policy to bring suit for payment. New Smyrna Imaging argued that the plain and unambiguous language of the assignment of benefits clearly assigned to New Smyrna Imaging all benefits, rights, title and interest under the subject policy of insurance to bring the instant lawsuit.
The pertinent language from the assignment executed by Durgin on June 27, 2013 in favor of New Smyrna Imaging is as follows:
ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS
I hereby assign from any and all automobile, health or casualty insurance policies, which provide medical benefits or no fault benefits, all benefits, rights, title and interest to NEW SMYRNA IMAGING, LLC, assignee, for services rendered unto me both by reason of accident or illness. This is to act as a limited Assignment of my rights and benefits to the extent of the Assignee’s services provided.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This Court finds that the assignment of benefits executed by Durgin on June 27, 2013 in favor of New Smyrna Imaging is a valid assignment of benefits that confers standing upon New Smyrna Imaging to bring the instant lawsuit against State Farm for unpaid PIP benefits related to the medical services provided to Durgin on June 27, 2013. Specifically, the assignment of benefits clearly assigns “from any and all automobile . . . insurance policies, which provide medical benefits or no fault benefits, all benefits, rights, title and interest to NEW SMYRNA IMAGING, LLC, assignee, for services rendered. . .” (Emphasis applied). These assigned rights include the right to bring suit against State Farm for the unpaid PIP benefits claimed by New Smyrna Imaging to be due and owing. See generally, Tunno v. Robert, 16 Fla. 738 (Fla. 1878); Mangum v. Susser, 764 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D1216a](effective assignment may be partly in writing, partly parol or it may be by a showing of circumstances in which the debtor is justified in making payment, regardless of whether there is anything in writing or in parol between the assignor and the assignee); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Ray, 556 So. 2d 811 (5th DCA 1990)(an assignment is defined as “a transfer or setting over of property or of some right or interest therein, from one person to another. It is the act by which one person transfers to another, or causes to vest in another, his right of property or interest therein”); Oglesby v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 781 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D702a](assignment existed where provider agreed to perform services based on an unqualified assignment of medical benefits on condition that patient would be ultimately responsible for any medical bills either not covered by policy or simply not paid by insurer); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gonnella, 677 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D1799d](assignment existed where insured allowed provider to receive direct payment of benefits from insurer) and Giles v. Sun Bank, NA, 450 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)(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 and an intention on the other side to receive it, if there is valuable consideration, will operate as an effective assignment).
In light of these findings, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
* * *
