5 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 696a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Assignment — Where medical provider had valid assignment of benefits from insured, informed insurer that assignment had been accepted at time claim was submitted, and provided its name and address, payment attempted by mail addressed to insured’s counsel is ineffective until that payment is actually delivered to medical provider — Because such delivery actually occurred long after suit commenced, medical provider entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs — Section 627.736(5) that permits payment directly to provider if insured endorses claim form does not negate common law of assignments, which provides that once assignee notifies debtor that assignment has occurred, payment thereafter to assignor will not relieve debtor of liability — There is no common law or statutory law that assignment documents be provided to debtor for examination before liability attaches
Reversed at 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 314a
BIOTRONIX LABORATORIES, INC. D/B/A ISO DATA DIAGNOSTICS, Plaintiff, vs. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court in and for Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 96-12868 SP05. May 26, 1998. Ann Parker, Judge.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S REVISED MOTION
TO DETERMINE ENTITLEMENT TO FEES
This matter came on for hearing by telephone on May 22, 1998. Both parties were represented by counsel. The parties stipulated before the Court that the Defendant received a claim from the Plaintiff dated February 15, 1996 for services rendered January 25, 1996, a true copy of which was appended to the Amended Complaint. The Defendant argued that it had paid the subject claim by mailing payment to the lawyer then representing the patient, its insured. The Plaintiff asserts that mailing payment to the insured’s lawyer does not relieve the Defendant from liability as the claim, at Block 27, told the Defendant that assignment had been accepted and gave the Plaintiff’s name and address at Block 33. The Defendant asserts that it received a copy of the actual assignment of benefits bearing the insured’s signature only after payment was sent to the insured’s lawyer. That check was never negotiated. A replacement check was sent to counsel for the Plaintiff by counsel for the Defendant dated February 24, 1998.
The Defendant argues that F.S. §627.736(5) requires that the insured actually sign the claim form in order to authorize direct payment to a provider. The Plaintiff counters that this portion of the statute is permissive and not mandatory because the legislature used the word “may” as a modifier on the authority to pay.
The Plaintiff had a valid assignment of benefits from the Defendant’s insured and informed the Defendant of the fact that assignment had been accepted at the time the claim was submitted. The law of assignments applies to PIP cases. Cf. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Ray, 556 So.2d 811 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. 1990); Margiotta v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 622 So.2d 135 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 1993). It is well established that once the assignee notifies the debtor that the assignment has occurred, payment thereafter to the assignor will not relieve the debtor of liability. Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, Ltd., 591 So.23 953 (Fla. App. 3rd Dist. 1991); Capital City Second National Bank v. Peavy & Son Construc- tion Company, 585 So.2d 1123 (Fla. App. 1st Dist. 1991); Withers v. Sandlin, 36 Fla. 619, 18 So. 856 (Fla. 1896). There is no common law or statutory requirement that the assignment document(s) be provided to the debtor for examination before liability attaches.
Fla. Stat. §627.736(5) addresses two means of paying a provider. The first sentence permits payment directly to a provider if the insured endorses the claim form. Nothing in this sentence negates the common law of assignments. Indeed, the third sentence of that same paragraph actually endorses common law assignments by requiring a provision in the PIP policy for binding arbitration with a provider that accepts assignment.
Fla. Stat. §627.736(4)(b) establishes the date on which the breach of contract occurs and the date payment is deemed made. The insurer has 30 days to consider the claim after receiving notice of its nature and amount. That notice is not in dispute. The last sentence of this subparagraph provides the answer. Since the Defendant was notified that the Plaintiff had accepted assignment and had provided its name and address, payment attempted by mail ad- dressed to the assignor’s counsel is ineffective until that payment is actually delivered to the Plaintiff. Such delivery actually occurred long after suit commenced in this case.
The Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys fees and costs. Wollard v. Lloyds & Cos., 439 So.2d 217, 218 (Fla. 1983); Fitzgerald & Company, Inc. v. Roberts Electric, 533 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Fortune Insurance Company v. Brito, 522 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988).
* * *
