26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 333a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2604PATHNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 521bInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Motion for judgment on pleadings based on medical provider’s lack of standing under assignment that is in name of entity that merged into provider after execution of assignment is granted where allegations about merger are not included in complaint and provider failed to move to amend complaint to include such allegations — No merit to argument that difference in name of assignee is latent ambiguity in assignment that would allow court to consider extrinsic evidence to interpret it — Matters outside pleadings cannot be considered in ruling on motion for judgment on pleadings, and there is no ambiguity in identification of parties to assignment
PATH MEDICAL LLC, a/a/o Aracelis Caraballo, Plaintiff, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE17020122, Division 54. June 14, 2018. Florence Barner, Judge. Counsel: Joseph A. Wolf, Landau & Associates, P.A., Hallandale Beach, for Plaintiff. Brigitte Silver, Dutton Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Defendant.
VACATED. 43 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 521b, 9/21/2018.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’SMOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Having heard argument of counsel on June 5, 2018, reviewed the Motion, and otherwise being sufficiently advised, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for the reasons stated below.
Plaintiff, PATH MEDICAL, LLC, filed this breach of contract action against Defendant alleging entitlement to Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits allegedly due under an automobile insurance policy. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that “Claimant equitably assigned to Plaintiff and/or also executed a written assignment of benefits, assigning to Plaintiff certain benefits payable pursuant to the policy of insurance issued by Defendant.” See Compl. ¶11. Attached to the Complaint are two documents: (1) an Acknowledgement of Liability/ Assignment of Benefits between Pines Injury Center, Inc. and Aracelis Caraballo (the “AOB”) and (2) what appears to be a Pines Injury Center, Inc. patient ledger for Aracelis Caraballo.
Defendant moved for Judgment on the Pleadings based upon Plaintiff’s lack of standing under the AOB. In brief, Defendant alleges that the AOB is by and between Pines Injury Center, Inc. and Aracelis Caraballo and that there is nothing alleged in the Complaint or inherent within the AOB which grants Plaintiff standing based upon it. In opposing Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Plaintiff alleged that Pines Injury Center, Inc. converted into Pines Injury, LLC which later merged into Path Medical, LLC and submitted an affidavit in support of the same contention. Essentially, Plaintiff alleged standing based upon its apparent status as successor entity. However, no such allegation is included in the Complaint and Plaintiff failed to move to amend the same.
Plaintiff next argued that there was a latent ambiguity with respect to the AOB which would allow the Court to consider extrinsic evidence. However, the law is clear that this evidence cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings. Whitaker v. Powers, 424 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (citing sources) (reversing ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings where the court considered matters outside the pleadings). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings . . . is appropriate where the complaint fails to state a cause of action. It is similar to a motion to dismiss and raises only questions of law arising out of the pleadings.” Shay v. First Fed. of Miami, Inc., 429 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Additionally, there is no ambiguity. It is a fundamental tenet of contract law that a phrase in a contract is ambiguous only when it is of uncertain meaning, and may be fairly understood in more ways than one. In the event of such an ambiguity, a trial court is authorized to admit parole evidence to explain the words used and how the contracting parties intended them to be interpreted. Emergency Assocs. of Tampa, P.A. v. Sassano, 664 So. 2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly D2313b] (internal citations and quotations omitted).
In the instant case, the AOB here was between Pines Injury Center, Inc. and Arcelis Caraballo. The words used to identify the parties are not ambiguous. The contents of exhibits attached to a complaint control over the allegations of the complaint in the event of a conflict or ambiguity. Kahn v. Bank of America, N.A., 58 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D738a], citing Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D1914b]. Additionally, exhibits attached to a complaint become a part of the complaint for all purposes. An exhibit to a pleading can negate a plaintiff’s cause of action because the plain language of an exhibit controls and may be the basis for a motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings. Health Application Syst., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 381 So. 2d 294, 197 (Fla. 1st 1980), citing Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(b); Padgett v. First Federal S & L Ass’n, 378 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Trawick, Florida Practice and Procedure, §6-15 at 75 (1978).
Therefore, based upon the reasons stated above, this Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Defendant is ordered to submit a final judgment in accordance with this ruling.
