7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 695a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment — Document titled “Assignment and Instruction for Direct Payment to Doctor” which was signed by insured was unqualified assignment of benefits, and, therefore, insured lacks standing to assert claim for charges arising from treatment or services rendered by medical provider/assignee — Fact that insured remains responsible to assignee for any amounts not paid by insurer does not act as limitation of qualification on rights being assigned to assignee — Letter from assignee to assignor/insured requesting that its bill be included in PIP suit did not constitute revocation of assignment or unqualified assignment back to insured — Insurer entitled to partial summary judgment with prejudice only as to standing or ability of insured to pursue claim for recovery of charges from subject medical provider
Dismissed with prejudice at 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 204a
GREGORY KURDIAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 99-21968 COCE 53. July 3, 2000. William Herring, Judge. Counsel: Miriam R. Merlo, Miriam R. Merlo, P.A., for Plaintiff. Steven R. Woods, Dickstein, Reynolds & Woods, Ft. Lauderdale, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on June 26, 2000, on Defendant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’s, Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff, an insured, has sued Defendant alleging that Defendant has failed to pay certain personal injury protection (PIP) and Med Pay benefits in accordance with the applicable insurance policy and the Florida No-Fault Statute. Plaintiff alleges that one his medical providers that was not paid by Defendant was Doctors Neurological Services. In pertinent part, Plaintiff’s suit specifically seeks the amount charged by Doctors Neurological Services.
2. In response to Request For Admissions, Plaintiff admitted signing a document attached to the Request for Admissions as an exhibit. This document was titled “Assignment and Instruction for Direct payment to doctor”. The Defendant’s claim number pertaining to Plaintiff’s PIP claim is referenced on the document. The document states in all capital letters and underlined, “THIS IS A DIRECT ASSIGNMENT OF MY RIGHTS AND BENEFITS UNDER THIS POLICY.” The document then states, “This payment will not exceed my indebtedness to the above-mentioned assignee, and I have agreed to pay, in a current manner, any balance of said professional service charges over and above this insurance payment.”
3. In response to Request For Admissions Plaintiff denied that the document was an assignment of benefits in favor of Doctors Neurological Services.
4. Defendant has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment asserting that despite the plaintiff’s denial, the document was, in fact, an assignment of benefits in favor of Doctors Neurological Services. Defendant asserts that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff assigned his rights under the applicable insurance policy to Doctors Neurological Services and as a result, Plaintiff lacks standing to assert a claim for any and all bills arising from treatment or services rendered by the plaintiff’s assignee.
5. In opposition to the Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiff filed an affidavit of the President of Doctors Neurological Services. This affidavit states that Mr. Kurdian (the plaintiff) has always remained financially responsible for those charges not paid by his insurance carrier. The affidavit also states that because of the denial of payment by State Farm, Doctors Neurological Services sent Mr. Kurdian’s attorney a letter requesting that its bill be included in a PIP suit to be filed on behalf of Mr. Kurdian. The letter to the plaintiff’s attorney from Doctors Neurological Services states, in pertinent part, “If you {sic} office is in the process of filing a PIP suit, would you please see that our bill is placed in line for payment when funds become available.”
6. Plaintiff argues that the document he signed is not a valid assignment of benefits because he remained financially responsible for any charges not paid by the Defendant. As a result, Plaintiff argues the document was not an unqualified assignment of benefits.
7. The document signed by the Plaintiff was an unqualified assignment of benefits, therefore, the Plaintiff lacks standing with respect to the charges of Doctors Neurological Services. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Ray, 556 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The fact that the Plaintiff remains responsible to the assignee for any amounts not paid by the insurer does not act as a limitation or qualification on the rights being assigned to the assignee.
8. The letter from the assignee, Doctors Neurological Services, to the assignor/Plaintiff did not constitute a revocation of assignment or an unqualified assignment back to the Plaintiff. Based on the foregoing findings, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED with prejudice only as to the standing or ability of the Plaintiff, Gregory Kurdian, to pursue a claim for recovery of the charges from Doctors Neurological Services.
* * *
