25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 390a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2504LEMOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical benefits — Standing — Assignment to provider of benefits under policy for services rendered and covered by PIP coverage under the insured’s name was valid assignment — Motion to dismiss for lack of standing denied
J AND C IMAGING, INC., a/a/o (Lemoynez, Dorgis E.), Plaintiff(s), vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 15-002818 COWE 82. May 30, 2017. Jennifer W. Hilal, Judge. Counsel: George Milev, Hollywood, for Plaintiff. Matthew Innes, Hollywood, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TODISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING
THIS CAUSE, having come before this Court on May 4, 2017 on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, counsels for parties having made arguments and the Court being fully advised in the premises hereby
FINDS, ORDERES AND ADJUDGES as follows:
Plaintiff filed a PIP lawsuit based on an alleged breach of automobile insurance contract. Plaintiff alleged in its Complaint standing based on written and equitable assignment. Plaintiff attached as an exhibit to the Complaint a document titled “Assignment of Benefits”. Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and alleged lack of standing based on invalid assignment as an affirmative defense. Subsequently, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing. On a motion to dismiss a trial court is bound by the four corners of the complaint and all ambiguities, and inferences drawn from the complaint, together with the exhibits attached must be construed in light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Lonestar Alternative Solution v. Leview-Bowmelgreen Soleil Developers, 10 So. 3d 1169 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D1048a]. In addition, on a motion to dismiss all allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and the question is simply whether, assuming all the allegations to be true, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. See Sobi v. Fairfield Resorts, 846 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D1350a]. The document titled “Assignment of Benefits” and attached as an exhibit to the Complaint in the current case reads in its first paragraph: “The undersigned patient hereby assigns the benefits of insurance under the automobile insurance with (insurance company name) State Farm to J and C Imaging, Inc. for services rendered to the undersigned patient and covered by Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Coverage under (Insured’s Name) Dorgis E. Lemoynes”. That paragraph clears any ambiguities in the document as a hole. Also, there is no requirement in Florida for the parties to use formal language in order to create a valid assignment of benefits. See Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Air Metal Industries, Inc., 176 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1965). In addition, only the insured or the medical provider “owns” the cause of action against the insurer at any one time. And the one that “owns” the claim must bring the action if an action is to be brought. See Oglesby v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 781 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D702a].
WHEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing is hereby Denied.
