6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 794a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Health care provider who did not have effective assignment of benefits from insured lacked standing to bring action against insurer — Document purporting to be assignment of benefits is merely a direction to pay, and does not constitute an assignment of insured’s rights to sue under subject insurance policy — Insurer’s motion for summary judgment granted
Reversed at 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 92b
DR. M.J. BARTELL, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Division. Case No. MC 96-12818-RL. September 21, 1999. Krista Marx, Judge. Counsel: Jacqueline Emanuel, Ft. Lauderdale. Harley Kane, Boca Raton.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant’s Rehearing on Motion for Summary Judgment and Final Judgment and the Court having heard argument and being otherwise advised in the premises makes the following findings of fact:
A document was filed with the Court on September 27, 1996. (Court’s file, document #11 Notice of Filing Assignments of Benefits) Attached to this notice is a form with the following language: PI hereby assign payment directly to this office for professional services rendered and I shall be personally responsible for any unpaid balance to the Doctor.” This document is signed by the patient at the allotted space directly below this language.
On November 18, 1996 a deposition of Mark Shang was taken. In this deposition there was a stipulation between the parties regarding Allstate’s payment of certain bills. This deposition included a stipulation effecting partial settlement as set forth in pages 8 & 9 thereof. The Plaintiff’s deposition taken on May 12, 1998 was the first time that Defendant was made aware that the only document the Plaintiff relied upon in asserting standing in this cause was the document attached to Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Assignment of Benefits dated September 27, 1996.
Based on the foregoing the Court makes the following findings:
1. Plaintiff argues that the deposition of Mark Shang dated November 18, 1996 operates as a waiver for Defendant to contest Plaintiff’s standing. The Court rejects this argument.
2. The Plaintiff argues that based on the language used in document # 11 “Notice of Assignment of Benefits” that the mere use of the word “assign” in the document qualifies the sentence as an assignment of benefits. Plaintiff cites Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Air Metal Industries, Inc., 176 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1965) for the premise that there are only minimum requirements that are necessary to effect an assignment, to wit:
“Formal requisites of such an assignment are not prescribed by statute and it may be accomplished by parole, by instrument in writing or other mode, such as delivery of evidences of the debt, those may demonstrate an intent to transfer an acceptance of it.” Id. @97
3. The Court finds the document purporting to be an assignment of benefits is merely a direction to pay. It does not constitute an assignment of benefits of the insured’s rights in standing to sue under the subject insurance policy. USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. Romm, 712 So.2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Central Florida Physiatrists v. Allstate Insurance Company, 6 FLW. Supp. 55 (9th Judicial Circuit In and For Orange County, Florida 10/22/98); State Farm v. Ray, 556 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
In Wallace v. Omni Insurance Company, 5 FLW, Supp. 284 (6th Judicial Circuit In and For Pinellas County, Florida 2/2/98). The Court found:
“There is nothing in the `Authorization to Pay Provider’ stating that Wallace is giving up her right to her PIP benefits, or that the medical provider is accepting an assignment. The document is only an authorization and request for the insurance company to pay the medical provider directly, rather than have the insurer send the payments to the insured. It is for administrative purposes, and does not rise to the level of an assignment of benefits” Id. @285.
4. This Court previously entered an Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on Plaintiff’s reliance on Boulevard (supra). This Court’s ruling was based on the broad language of Boulevard which speaks of the “intent of the parties”. However, this Court adopts Defendant’s arguments and cited authority in its renewed Motion for Summary Judgment dated August 18, 1999 to negate the conclusion that the parties intended for there to be an assignment of benefits. It is clear that the patient merely intended for there to be a “direction to pay”.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that based upon the foregoing it is this Court’s finding that Plaintiff, Dr. M.J. Bartell did not possess an assignment of benefits from Allstate’s insured. Without an assignment of benefits Plaintiff has failed to meet the threshold requirement that would provide standing to maintain this cause of action. The Plaintiff, Dr. M.J. Bartell lacks standing to bring the action and the Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of standing is GRANTED.
The Court further enters Final Judgment in favor of the Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company and against the Plaintiff Dr. M.J. Bartell and that Plaintiff, Dr. M.J. Bartell take nothing by this action and that the Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company shall go hence without day.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorney’s fees in this cause of action.
* * *
