27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 831a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2709DSInsurance — Standing — Assignment — Document that assigns “benefits of insurance” to medical provider is valid assignment — Insurer may not attack validity of assignment

D & S CHIRO REHAB CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. WINDHAVEN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2018-004153-SP-24, Section MB01. November 8, 2019. Stephanie Silver, Judge. Counsel: Erick W. Evans, The Patino Law Firm, Hialeah, for Plaintiff. Anthony Atala, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO DISMISS COUNT IV OFPLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF STANDING

This Cause, having come before the Court at a Motion to Dismiss, and having heard the argument of the parties and reviewed the motions filed therein on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count IV of the Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Standing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. Florida law is clear that an isured may assign his or her insurance benefits to another party. See, e.g., Livingston v. State Farm, 774 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D533c]. In this case, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring suit because the assignment of benefits executed by the insured on April 5, 2016, does not give the Plaintiff the authority to file a lawsuit against the Defendant for breach of contract. The Defendant moved to dismiss the claim on January 28, 2019, stating that the assignment was merely a direction to pay and the Plaintiff lack standing to sue.

This Court disagrees. “The effect of such an assignment is to place the insured’s cause of action for such benefits in the provider” and the medical provider owns the cause of action against the insurer. J&C Imaging, a/a/o Jesus Rivero v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 619a (11th Judicial Circuit Appellate, 2018). In the instant case, the patient assigned the “benefits of insurance” to the Plaintiff for services rendered. Furthermore, only two parties may contest the validity of the assignment. Here, those two parties are Mr. Fernandez, the insured, and the Plaintiff. See Digital Medical Diagnostics v. Allstate, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1147b (11th Judicial Circuit Appellate, 2008). Therefore, the Defendant may not attack the contract. Therefore, the Defendant’s Motion is Denied.