5 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 90a
Conflict of laws — Insurance — Lex loci contractus — Personal injury protection — Where insured was New York resident and insured vehicle was garaged in New York; insurer was New York corporation with its principal place of business in that state; application for insurance was submitted to insurer, the contract entered into, and the policy issued in New York; and the policy specifically referred to application of New York law, New York law applied to Florida assignee’s claim against insurer for costs of treating injuries sustained by insured in Florida accident
DR. BARRY BURAK, et al., Plaintiff, vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. In the County Court in and for Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 96-4853 CC 25 (01). August 12, 1997. Jeffrey D. Swartz, Judge.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK LAW
This cause came on before the court upon Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Application of New York Law to the instant cause and the court after having reviewed the Motion, the submissions of counsel, the oral arguments and being otherwise fully advised in the premises does make the following findings:
Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company entered into a contract of insurance providing coverage to its insured Leslie Abelson providing for coverage and payment for medical treatment for injuries which may be sustained in an automobile accident. While in the State of Florida the insured was injured in such an accident. The insured sought medical treatment from Plaintiff and incurred certain expenses for such treatment.
Plaintiff obtained an assignment of benefits under the contract for insurance and sought payment for the services rendered to the insured. Defendant denied payment of those charges. Plaintiff filed the instant action.
Despite the fact that the accident, which resulted in the injuries sustained by the insured, occurred in Florida, the doctrine of lex loci contractus must apply. Though receded from in some instances by the “significant relationships” test this doctrine is still the law in this state. Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 1988).
The test, as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Sec. 188 (1971), for the doctrine of lex loci contractus provides:
“(1) The rights and duties of he parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to theat issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles state in Sec. 6.
(2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties (see Sec 187), the contracts to be taken into account in applying the principles of Sec. 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:
(a) the place of the occurrence,
(b) the place of negotiation of the contract
(c) the place of performance
(d) the location of the subject matter of the contract,
(e) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.
“These contracts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.”
Even if one tried to apply the less stringent test of significant relationships, there is insufficient cause to apply Florida law to a contract, which never contemplated such application, merely because the insured had an unfortunate incident within this state’s borders. To expand the coverage afforded the insured under the contract because of an assignment of benefits to a medical provider in the State of Florida is not supported by Florida law.
Further the assignee can take nothing more than the assignor had to give. The Plaintiff did not have to accept an assignment, but chose to do so knowing what company the policy had been issued by and where the claim had to be sought.
It is undisputed that the insured was a New York resident and that the vehicle was garaged in the State of New York. Further the Defendant was a New York corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New York. The application for insurance was submitted to Defendant, the contract entered into and the policy issued pursuant to the laws of and in the State of New York. Lastly the policy specifically refers to the application of New York Statutes.
Based upon the foregoing facts and their application to the doctrine of lex loci contractus it is clear that New York law must apply in the instant cause and therefore it is hereby;
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Application of New York Law is GRANTED.
* * *
