7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 414b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment — Insured, as matter of law, lacks standing to bring action to recover payment for medical bills — Policy language requiring written consent by insurer to an assignment does not bar assignment of after-loss claims — Further, insurer treated assignment as being valid and operative by making payments to medical provider on insured’s claim, even though assignment was undated and blank as to provider and insurer — Fact that insured remains liable to medical providers to extent that insurer does not pay all of providers’ bills, does not give insured sufficient stake in outcome of litigation, which does not encompass more than permissible extent of first party PIP benefits
WILBERT SAINVIL, Plaintiff, v. PEACHTREE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No: 97-11738 (53). March 21, 2000. William W. Herring, Judge. Counsel: David C. Rash and Steven M. Singer, for Plaintiff. Daniel F. Pilka, Pilka and Associates, P.A., for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard upon Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and after hearing arguments of counsel, a review of the evidence contained in the file and being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is, therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Court concludes that as a matter of law Plaintiff lacks the standing to bring the subject action for the Advance Pain and Spinal Rehabilitation Center and Medical Imaging Center, Inc.’s medical bills and finds as follows:
1. Despite the policy language requiring written consent by Defendant to an assignment, such provision does not bar assignments of what are, here, assignments of after-loss claims. See Better Construction, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, 651 So.2d 141, 142 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995); and Lexington Insurance Company v. Simkins Industries, Inc., 704 So.2d 1384, 1386, Fn. 3 (Fla. 1998); and the deposition of Advanced Pain and Spinal Rehabilitation Center’s representative, Heidi Fink, at page 11 which discloses that Defendant had made prior payments to Advance Pain, thereby approving the assignment of claim or waiving the right to invoke the non-assignment policy provisions, see Better Construction, 651 So.2d at 142.
2. Even though the Advance Pain and Spinal Rehabilitation Center assignment is undated and blank as to the provider and insurer, Defendant treated this assignment as being valid and operative by making payments on the Plaintiff’s claim to Advance Pain and Spinal Rehabilitation Center, and so will this Court.
3. The fact that the Plaintiff remains liable to Advance Pain and Spinal Rehabilitation Center and Medical Imaging Center, Inc. to the extent Defendant does not pay all of these provider’s bills, does not give Plaintiff a sufficient stake in the outcome of this litigation, which does not encompass more than the permissible extent of first party PIP benefits (Plaintiff’s liability to the providers is or would be a wholly separate independent lawsuit).
4. These assignments were unqualified assignments and, as such, irrevocable with the providers/assignees obtaining all the rights (and obligations) transferred with the Plaintiff/Assignor retaining none. See Livingston v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2000WL 234691 (Fla. 2nd DCA March 3, 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D533]; Rittman v. Allstate Insurance Company, 727 So.2d 391, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Ray, 556 So.2d 811, 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
* * *
