23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 266b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2303MCCLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Document that assigns rights to three medical providers is fatally flawed — No merit to claim that there was equitable assignment in favor of plaintiff provider — Equitable assignments are prohibited under PIP statute
ROGER M. ROMANO, D.C., P.A., (as assignee of McClay, Robert), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County, Civil Division. Case No. 2013-SC-003204 NC. October 30, 2014. Honorable Phyllis R. Galen, Judge. Counsel: J.D. Underwood, Florida Advocates, P.A., Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Dyana L. Sisti, Reynolds, Parrino, Spano & Shadwick, P.A., Saint Petersburg, for Defendant.
FINAL JUDGMENT
This cause having come before this Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court having heard argument, reviewed the pleadings and case law and being otherwise advised of the premises, it is herby Ordered and Adjudged as follows,
1. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract for failure to pay Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Benefits. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Plaintiff lacks standing due to an invalid assignment of benefits.
2. Attached to the Plaintiff’s Complaint is a document titled, “ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS, AUTHORIZATION TO SETTLE CLAIM AND DIRECTION TO PAY MEDICAL PROVIDER DIRECTLY.” This document reads, in part:
“I hereby assign, transfer and convey to Roger M. Romano, D.C. P.A./Chriss Sigafoose, D.C./Maceio B. Powell, D.C. (hereinafter “the Provider”) all of my rights, title and interest in and to medical expense reimbursement in whatever form, including but not limited to automobile liability medical expense payments or other health benefits and indemnification and/or agreement otherwise payable to me.”
3. Defendant argues that the assignment is not valid and is against public policy because it assigns benefits to three separate and distinct entities and individuals; therefore, res judicata would not apply in a subsequent action brought by one of the individually named chiropractors. Defendant relies on Turner Orthopedic, P.A., a/a/o Laura Pendleton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 354a (12th Cir. Manatee Cty. Ct. 2013).
4. Plaintiff raises two main arguments in response to Defendant’s contention: 1) that the intent of the assignment was for the assignor, Robert McClay, to assign benefits to Roger Roman, D.C., P.A, only, and 2) that Robert McClay equitably assigned his rights to the Plaintiff.
5. This Court agrees with our sister Court in Manatee County in the Turner case that, “it is critically important that when there is an assignment, it be clear on its face to whom the assignment is made. . . for the purposes of res judicata, the Court has to look to whether there is unity of the parties.” If there is no unity of the parties, res judicata would not apply. As such, the assignment of benefits relied on by the Plaintiff is inherently and fatally flawed.
6. Despite Plaintiff’s representation that the intent of the assignment was to assign rights to Roger M. Romano, D.C. P.A. only, there is nothing to impede either or both Chriss Sigafoose, D.C. and Maceio B. Powell, D.C. from subsequently filing an action seeking the same claim against the Defendant.
7. As to Plaintiff’s contention that there was an equitable assignment to Roger M. Romano, D.C. P.A., this Court is in agreement with Dionne Douglas, and Sanar Health Service, Inc., d/b/a Medical Rehabilitative Center, v. United Automobile Insurance Co., 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1031b (11th Cir. Miami-Dade Cty. Ct. 2010). Equitable assignments are prohibited in PIP claims under the PIP statutory scheme. See, Ins. Corp. of New York v. M & J Health Center, Inc., 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 682a (11th Jud. Cir. App., April 4, 2006). Florida Statute Section 627.736(10) requires that, along with a valid written notice of intent to initiate litigation, the Plaintiff must include a copy of the assignment giving rights to the claimant. Without a valid written assignment, a claimant lacks standing, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
It is therefore Ordered and Adjudged that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further Ordered and Adjudged that Plaintiff, ROGER M. ROMANO, D.C., P.A., shall take nothing from this action and Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, shall go hence without day.
