26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 587b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2607CMONInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Plaintiff does not have standing under assignment of benefits where assignment lists individual as the assignee, not the plaintiff, which is a professional association bearing a title with the individual’s name — Court will not look to parol evidence to consider contrary meaning where language of assignment is unambiguous
ROBERTO ARIAS, DC PA, a/a/o Carmen S. Montes, Plaintiff, vs. WINDHAVEN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County. Case No. 2016-SC-000204-SP. August 15, 2018. Hal C. Epperson, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Pete Placencia, Kissimmee, for Plaintiff. John Mollaghan, Staff Attorney, Windhaven Insurance, Miami, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on July 25, 2018 on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Each party was represented by legal counsel and each party made legal argument concerning their respective position on the instant motion. The Defendant asserts that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to the question of whether the Plaintiff has standing to bring this action. The Plaintiff, of course, argues to the contrary, asserting that the Plaintiff enjoys legal standing to bring this suit by virtue of an Assignment of Benefits. At a minimum, Plaintiff argues, there is a genuine issue of material fact on this question.
The Plaintiff, a professional association known as Roberto Arias, DC, PA, has brought this legal action against Defendant Windhaven Insurance Company seeking recovery of PIP benefits under an automobile insurance policy. Plaintiffs ostensible basis for the enjoyment of standing to sue is grounded upon an Assignment of Benefits conferred by one of the Defendant’s Insureds, to wit: Carmen S. Montes. The Assignment of Benefits relied upon by the Plaintiff as the basis for standing is attached to the Complaint. This Assignment of Benefits explicitly designates only one entity as the “Assignee”, that being Roberto Arias, DC. This designation of Roberto Arias, DC as the “Assignee” is found under the “Direction of Payment” section of the single page document which contains both the “Assignment of Benefits” provision followed by the “Direction of Payment” section. There is nothing ambiguous with respect to the identity of the “Assignee” being Roberto Arias, DC. It is also apparent that the designated “Assignee”, Robert Arias, DC, is a separate and distinct entity from the named Plaintiff in this case, a professional association bearing the title, Robert Arias, DC PA. An Assignment of Benefits can be enjoyed only by the designated “Assignee” and no others. In an instance where the language employed to designate the “Assignee” is clear and unambiguous, it is not proper for the Court to look to parole evidence to consider a contrary meaning. Based upon the foregoing, it is the finding of the Court that there are no genuine issues of material fact on the question of whether the Plaintiff enjoys standing. Plaintiff does not enjoy standing based upon an Assignment of Benefits which confers the rights of the named insured upon a third party and not the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
