5 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 506b
Insurance — Insured’s action against insurer — Trial court properly denied motion for summary judgment in which insurer contended that insured had assigned right to receive benefits to medical provider where document assigning benefits did not indicate insurance company or policy from which benefits were assigned
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUSAN SOCIER, Respondent. 5th Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division. Case No. 97-4370-CA. County Case No. 96-971-CCS. Opinion filed March 25, 1998. Hale R. Stancil, Judge. Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the County Court for Marion County, The Honorable Frances S. King. Counsel: Michael C. Tyson, Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutclife, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner. Richard B. Davis, Gainesville, for Respondent.
OPINION
(Stancil, H.) Before the Court is a petition for writ of certiorari by the Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Nationwide) seeking review of the lower court’s ruling denying Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment. In the underlying cause of action, the Respondent has sued Nationwide for payment of insurance benefits. Nationwide filed its motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Respondent assigned the right to receive such benefits to a certain Dr. Badanek. The Court has reviewed the purported assignment document. While there is a document in which the Respondent assigns insurance benefits to Dr. Badanek, nothing in the document indicates the insurance company or policy from which these benefits are assigned. Without more, there remains an issue of material fact as to whether the assignment properly assigns the benefits from Respondent’s Nationwide policy to her doctor. The trial judge properly denied the motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Petition is denied. (W. Swigert, M. Hill concur.)
* * *
