26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 896c
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2611RAMIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Standing — Insured who has assigned PIP benefits to medical providers lacks standing to bring action for declaratory judgment regarding coverage
RAUDEL RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 18-CA-006714 (H), Civil Division. January 2, 2019. Emmett Lamar Battles, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Patrick Law Group, P.A., Tampa; and Joseph E. Nicholas, Nicholas Law Group, PLLC, Tampa, for Plaintiff. Diane Cassie Bermudez, Progressive PIP House Counsel, Tampa, for Defendant.
FINAL ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on December 17, 2018, pursuant to Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (certificate of service dated October 8, 2018), and the Court having reviewed the record evidence, pleadings, and motions, and having considered argument of Counsel and legal authority submitted by the parties, and being otherwise fully advised in this matter, does hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
This case arises out of a Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Ramirez” or “Plaintiff”). In its Petition Plaintiff sought determinations as follows:
a. That Ramirez is entitled to a declaration of coverage from Progressive, pursuant to Florida Statutes 86.011,
b. That Progressive is required to provide property damage, liability and personal injury protection benefits, if applicable, pursuant to the policy of insurance issued to Ramirez and which was in effect on November 4, 2016 (sic), pursuant to Florida Statutes 86.011,
c. Progressive has a duty to pay interest and attorney’s fees, even if Progressive resolves this matter prior to judgment, pursuant to Florida Statutes 627.428,
d. Ramirez is entitled to such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.
During the course of this claim, Progressive received bills under the Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) portion of its automobile insurance policy from various medical providers submitted on behalf of Ramirez. Included with the bills for reimbursement were Assignments of Benefits executed by Ramirez. It was agreed by the parties at the hearing on summary judgment that the language of the Assignments intended to assign all rights, benefits, and causes of action to the various medical providers. There was no evidence presented that Ramirez had executed a revocation of these Assignments of Benefits at any time.
Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Progressive” or “Defendant”) filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law, as well as the Affidavit of its Litigation Adjuster in Support thereof, regarding Plaintiff’s failure to submit to an Examination Under Oath (“EUO”) in accordance with the Policy provisions and the Florida No Fault Law, and Lack of Standing for Plaintiff to maintain this cause of action.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Only the insured or the medical provider owns the cause of action against the insurer at any one time. The one that owns the claim must bring the action if an action is to be brought. Oglesby v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 781 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D702a]. As an assignment vests in the assignee the right to enforce the contract, an assignor retains no rights to enforce the contract after it has been assigned. Price v. RLI Ins. Co., 914 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2536a]. If the insured has assigned benefits to the medical provider, the insured has no standing to bring an action against the insurer. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. McGrath Community Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2622b]. Based upon the precise language of the Assignments of Benefits executed by Ramirez during this claim, any causes of action, if any, rest with the medical providers. Plaintiff lacks standing in this matter in light of the Assignments.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED. There is no need to address the questions raised in Plaintiff’s petition, nor the issues raised in Defendant’s Summary Judgment concerning Plaintiff’s failure to submit to an Examination Under Oath, as those issues are moot due to Plaintiff’s lack of standing. Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action. FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT SHALL GO HENCE FORTH WITHOUT DAY. The Defendant is the prevailing party in this action. The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine Defendant’s entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
