8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 44a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Collection agency cannot pursue action against insurer under section 627.736
HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL SERVICE (As assignee of Simona Penaloza, as Legal Guardian of Monica Penaloza, a minor), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 96-18517 CC. Division H. October 18, 2000. Frank A. Gomez, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, for Plaintiff. Karen A. Barnett, Barnett & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
THIS MATTER came before the Court on September 7, 2000 on Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgement. The Court, after considering the Motion, supporting and responsive memoranda, argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds and rules as follows:
Healthcare Financial Service brought this cause of action as assignee of Simona Penaloza, as the legal Guardian of Monica Penaloza, a minor, seeking payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits relating to injuries suffered by Monica as a result of an automobile accident.
In its Motion, Defendant argues that the Plaintiff is not an entity which can avail itself of the rights and remedies set forth in §627.736, Florida Statutes, 1999 based on the undisputed fact that Plaintiff is a collection agency rather than a provider of health care services.
Plaintiff argues that since Simona Penaloza, as the legal guardian of Monica Penaloza assigned her rights to Healthcare Financial Services, it is entitled to pursue this action.
This Court disagrees, although the Penalozas may freely assign their rights therefore entitling Plaintiff to pursue a claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff, as a collection agency, cannot pursue an action under this statute. According to § 627.736(5), Defendant is required to pay only a “physician, hospital, clinic, or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person for bodily injury.” Further, § 627.736(5)(c), regarding arbitration provisions, governs suits “between the insurer and any person providing medical services or supplies if that person had agreed to accept assignment of personal injury protection benefits.” It therefore logically follows that the rights and remedies set forth in this statute are available only to either the insured or to assignees of the insured that have provided medical treatment or services. Since Plaintiff is not a medical services provider, it does not come within the statute’s terms. See Garcia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1205624 (Fla. 5th DCA August 25, 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2050]. It is therefore:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement is hereby GRANTED.
* * *
