22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 458a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2204FRANInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Document that authorizes medical provider to prosecute action is valid assignment of benefits — Failure to include names of provider and insurer on assignment creates issue of fact precluding summary judgment
RICKY P. LOCKETT, D.O., P.A., AAO MELMORINE FRANCIS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 13-4927-SC-44. November 4, 2014. Kathleen T. Hessinger, Judge. Counsel: James D. Underwood, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Amy Prevatt, Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This Cause came to be heard before this Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with the Parties present, represented by counsel, and this Court having heard argument and being otherwise advised of the premises, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged as follows,
1. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract based on an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging Plaintiff lacked standing as the Assignment of Benefits did not assign the rights and benefits under the policy of insurance to Plaintiff and the Assignment of Benefits fails to set forth the name of the medical provider and the insurance company.
2. Based on the language in the Assignment of Benefits, the rights and benefits under the policy of insurance were assigned to the medical provider. The Assignment of Benefits states,
. . .I hereby irrevocably assign to the aforementioned medical provider any Personal Injury Protection benefits I may have in accordance with Florida Statute 627.736(5). This includes any benefits from my insurance company or any other entity that may be responsible for expenses incurred, and I authorize the Provider to prosecute said action and collect legal expenses as they see fit. . . (emphasis added)
The authorization of the medical provider to prosecute said action is sufficient to show an assignment of rights and benefits under the policy.
3. As to the failure to state the name of the medical provider and the insurance company on the Assignment of Benefits, this Court previously dismissed a claim, without prejudice with leave to amend, in a similar case, due to the failure to state such information on the Assignment of Benefits. However, this Court was not reminded of Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. v. Seminole Cas. Ins. Co., 10 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D672b], wherein the Court ruled that the failure to include the medical providers name was an ambiguity; therefore, an issue of fact exists to be determined by a jury. In the present case, Plaintiff provided an affidavit, from Ricky Lockett, D.O., stating that the Assignment of Benefits was for Plaintiff as the medical provider and Defendant as the insurance company. As such, an issue of fact exists and summary judgment must be DENIED.
It is therefore Ordered and Adjudged that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
* * *
