4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 130a
Arbitration — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Dispute between insurer and medical services provider who has accepted assignment of benefits was required to be resolved by arbitration under terms of policy — Although no written assignment of benefits had been made, trial court could infer the existence of valid assignment from fact that medical services provider presented its bill to insurer and requested that payment be made directly to provider rather than insured — Order granting motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration is affirmed
ANTONIO COSTA, Appellant, vs. FIDELITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Appellate Division. Case No. 95-364 AP. Opinion filed June 28, 1996. Appeal from the County Court, Victoria S. Sigler, J. Counsel: William Franz, for the Appellant. Dora L. Beatty, for the Appellee.
(Before Gerald Hubbart, Jennifer Bailey and Michael Chavies, JJ.)
(HUBBART, J.) Appellant, Antonio Acosta, plaintiff in the court below, appeals an order granting the Appellee Fidelity National Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. We affirm.
Appellant was insured by Appellee under a personal injury protection policy. The policy contained a binding arbitration provision as required by Section 627.736(5), Fla. Stats., (1995). The provision reads as follows:
Any claims dispute between us and a medical services provider who has agreed to accept an assignment of benefits shall be decided by arbitration upon written request of either party.
(Emphasis supplied.)
On June 29, 1994, Appellant was injured in a covered accident and received treatment from Medical Health Services, Inc. Medical Health later sent a bill directly to Appellee for the medical services rendered to Appellant with instructions that payment be made directly to Medical Health. Appellee paid a portion of the bill directly to Medical Health but refused to pay all of it.
Upon being sued by Appellant for the balance of the bill, Appellee moved to dismiss, contending that it was entitled to the benefits of the above quoted arbitration clause in the policy. At the hearing on the motion, no testimony was taken but various documents were submitted by the parties. The trial Court granted the motion and this appeal follows.
There is no doubt that if a valid assignment of benefits was made by Appellant to Medical Health, the trial court’s ruling was correct. An assignment need not be in writing to be valid. It may be established by parol or other evidence. See Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Air Metals Industries, Inc., 176 So.2d 94 (Fla. 1965); Protection House, Inc. v. Daverman and Associates, 167 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
Here, while there was no written assignment of benefits by Appellant to Medical Services, the trial court could infer the existence of a valid assignment from the fact that Medical Services presented its bill to Appellee and requested payment to be made directly to Medical Services and not Appellant. Furthermore, Medical Services accepted the partial payment of its bill.
There was, to be sure, documents presented by Appellant to show that no assignment had been made. But because the trial court’s order is supported by substantial competent evidence, we affirm the granting of the motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. (BAILEY and CHAVIES, JJ., concur.)
* * *
