23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 255b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2303ALEMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Alleged assignment was in fact direction to pay that did not confer standing on medical provider to bring action for collection of insured’s PIP benefits — Further, unsigned document is not valid agreement or contract — Provider cannot rely on affidavit of insured and attached signed version of document at issue to assert standing — Parol evidence cannot be used to clarify intent of unambiguous document, and document signed after filing of complaint cannot be used to assert standing — Equitable assignment — Court cannot deem document to be equitable assignment where unambiguous language makes it direction to pay — Moreover, PIP statute requires a written assignment if claimant is not the insured
PAUL J. ZAK, M.D., P.A., d/b/a COASTAL SPINE SPECIALISTS, a/a/o CARLOS ALEMAR, Plaintiff, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County. Case No. 13-6563-SC. July 10, 2015. Kathleen T. Hessinger, Judge. Counsel: Stephen D. Deitsch, Deitsch & Wright, P.A., Lake Worth, for Plaintiff. Birdy V. Vanasupa and Christopher J. Blain, Vernis & Bowling of the Gulf Coast, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This Cause came to be heard before this Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment with the Parties present, represented by counsel, and this Court having heard argument, reviewed the pleadings and affidavits and being otherwise advised of the premises, it is hereby
Ordered and Adjudged as follows,
1. Plaintiff sued Defendant for PIP benefits claiming the right to sue based on an assignment of benefits from the insured, Carlos Alemar.
2. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming the alleged assignment was merely a “Direction to Pay,” not an assignment of rights and benefits under the policy. Plaintiff filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue claiming the document was an assignment. Plaintiff further argued that if it was not an express assignment, it was an equitable or implied assignment.
3. Plaintiff relies on a document titled, Assignment of Benefits, Authorization for Treatment, Release of Records, to support its claim against Defendant. The pertinent parts of the document states as follows:
ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS: I hereby authorize payment directly to CSS of any and all medical benefits applicable and otherwise payable to me. I understand that I am financially responsible to CSS for charges not covered by this assignment. I also understand that CSS is filing any claims as a courtesy and that unless stipulated in a contract with my carrier, I am responsible for payment of this claim. If no-fault MPC automobile insurance assignment is executed and applicable to services provided, this paragraph is only applicable to those amounts not covered by the policy of insurance, including but not limited to co-payments, co-insurance amounts, deductibles, charges which exceed maximum policy limits, or denials based upon §627.736(2) or §627.409 Fla. Stat.
4. The bottom of the document has a “patient signature” line, a “print name” line and “date” line. The insured’s name is printed on the “print name” line and the date of “3/25/13” is on the “date” line. However, there is no signature on the “patient signature” line.
5. 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.” State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Ray, 556 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). An assignment transfers to the assignee all the interest of the assignor under the assigned contract. Id., 556 So. 2d at 813. In the absence of an ambiguity on the face of a contract, it is well settled that the actual language used in the contract is the best evidence of the intent of the parties, and the plain meaning of that language controls. Acceleration Nat’l Serv. Corp. v. Brickell Financial Serv. Motor Club, Inc., 541So. 2d 738, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
6. The plain language of the document, for which Plaintiff claims is an assignment, states that the patient authorizes “payment directly to CSS of any and all medical benefits applicable and otherwise payable to me.” The language herein is a ‘Direction to Pay,” not an assignment of rights under the policy. The document plainly directs the insured’s PIP insurance company to pay his applicable medical benefits directly to Plaintiff. The plain language of the document does not assign any of the insured’s rights or interests under the policy of insurance, which would include his right to sue his insurance company. The document does not even suggest that any rights or interests under the policy have been transferred to Plaintiff.
7. As such, Plaintiff is not entitled to bring an action against Defendant for collection of the insured’s PIP benefits. Moreover, this document is not signed by the patient/insured; therefore, this is not a valid agreement or contract between the parties.
8. Plaintiff’s cross motion alleges that this document was meant to be an assignment of benefits. Plaintiff attached an affidavit from the insured wherein the insured alleges that when signing this document he intended to assign his rights, benefits and causes of actions to Plaintiff. As no ambiguity exists in the “Direction to Pay,’ this Court cannot rely on parol evidence to explain, elucidate, or clarify the intention of the parties. See Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Tilley, 534 So. 2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The insured’s affidavit also has a signed version of the document at issue attached to it. The insured does not state when he signed the document attached to his affidavit. Even if this was an assignment, the provider cannot now assert standing based upon a questionable signed assignment of benefits that came into existence months after the filing of the original complaint. See Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. McGrath Comm. Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281, 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2622b].
9. Finally, Plaintiff requests this Court deem this an equitable or implied assignment. This Court cannot deem this an equitable or implied assignment as the unambiguous, plain language of the document makes it a “Direction to Pay,” not an assignment, either express, equitable or implied. Moreover, the PIP statute requires a written assignment giving rights to the claimant if the claimant is not the insured. §627.736(10)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (2013).
It is therefore Ordered and Adjudged that Plaintiff, Paul J. Zak, M.D., P.A. d/b/a/ Coastal Spine Specialists, a/a/o Carlos Alemar, takes nothing from this action and Defendant, Auto Owners Insurance Company, shall go hence without delay.
