7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 211b
Insurance — Assignment — Standing — Insured has standing to bring cause of action because assignment of benefits signed by insured is qualified assignment in that insured remains financially responsible for payment of provider’s charges — Dismissal or remand for arbitration not required because there has been reassignment of benefits to insured — Insured has consent of assignee to bring cause of action where reassignment of benefits was executed prior to filing of action — Because insured remains fully responsible for all charges incurred with medical provider, she has both legitimate interest in matter sufficient to warrant asking court to entertain it and sufficient interest at stake in controversy which will be affected by outcome of litigation to vest her with standing to maintain cause of action
MARY CROWELL, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 1st Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County. Case No. 99-2179-SP-11, Division 3. December 7, 1999. David B. Ackerman, Judge. Counsel: Robert N. Heath, Jr., Pensacola. Stephen R. Kanzer, Tampa.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE having come before the court upon motion of the Defendant NATIONWIDE for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for lack of standing, and the court having heard the arguments of counsel and reviewed the citations of authority submitted by counsel, hereby finds as follows:
1. The document signed by the Plaintiff on January 10, 1999, purported by Nationwide to be an assignment of benefits, is only a qualified assignment in that the Plaintiff remains financially responsible for payment of the provider’s charges.1 Because the assignment is qualified, the court finds that State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Ray, 556 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), does not deprive the Plaintiff of standing to bring this action.
2. The court also finds that Dr. Currier executed a reassignment of benefits to the Plaintiff on April 28,1999 prior to the filing of this action. Plaintiff therefore clearly has the consent of the assignee to bring this action as contemplated by State Farm v. Ray. Because there has been a reassignment to the Plaintiff, the court finds that State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gonnella, 677 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) does not mandate that the cause be dismissed or remanded to arbitration.
3. Because Plaintiff remains fully responsible for all charges incurred with Dr. Currier, she has both a legitimate interest in this matter sufficient to warrant asking the court to entertain it and a sufficient interest at stake in this controversy which will be affected by the outcome of this litigation to vest her with standing to maintain this action. Jamlynn Investments Corp. v. San Marcos Residences of Marco Condominium Assoc., Inc. 544 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989); Geiger v. Sun First National Bank of Orlando, 427 So.2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.
________
1The document states, in pertinent part:
“I, the undersigned … assign directly to Dr. Erin Currier all medical benefits, if any, otherwise payable to me for services rendered. I understand that I am financially responsible for all charges whether or not paid by insurance…” (emphasis added).
* * *
