8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 316a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignments — Non-medical provider — Motion to dismiss cause of action brought by collection agency assignee to recover PIP benefits relating to injuries insured sustained in automobile accident denied — Collection agency assignee obtained valid assignment from insured and therefore is entitled to all of rights and remedies available to insured under PIP statute, even if assignee is non-medical provider — To prohibit non-medical provider from recovery would offend purposes of PIP statute, which is to provide prompt payment of benefits to insured after accident
MEDIFIN, INC. f/k/a Healthcare Financial Services, Inc. (As assignee of Joanne Peck), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 00-6031-SC. Division I. November 22, 2000. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge. Counsel: Guy A. Gilbert, Brandon. Karen A. Barnett, Tampa.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS MATTER came before the Court on October 24, 2000 on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 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:
Plaintiff brought this cause of action as assignee of Joanne Peck, seeking payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits relating to injuries Ms. Peck suffered as a result of an automobile accident.
In its Motion, Defendant argues that the plaintiff collection agency assignee cannot seek to recover under the rights and remedies set forth in §627.736, Florida Statutes, 1999 because those rights and remedies are available only to either the insured or to assignees of the insured that have provided medical treatment or services.
Plaintiff argues that to prohibit it from recovery because it is a “non-medical” provider would offend the purpose of Florida’s PIP statute, which is to provide prompt payment of benefits to the insured after an accident.
This Court agrees. Florida Statute § 627.736 is silent as to whether the insured may assign his or her rights to a “non-medical” assignee. “Where a statute is silent, the courts must fill in the inevitable statutory gaps by relying on the common law. On the subject of assignments, the common law speaks in a loud and consistent voice: An assignee stands in the shoes of his assignor.” Dove v. McCormick, 698 So.2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). In the instant case, Medifin has obtained a valid assignment from Ms. Peck and therefore is entitled to all of the rights and remedies available to Ms. Peck under §627.736.
Further, the right of an assignee to sue for breach of contract to enforce assigned rights predates the Florida Constitution. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinnacle Medical, Inc., 753 So.2d 55 (Fla.2000). Since Medifin can therefore pursue a claim for breach of contract as Ms. Peck’s assignee, it should also be permitted to seek relief in this PIP proceeding. In Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Co., 296 So.2d 9, 16 (Fla. 1974), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the legislative objectives of PIP insurance included, inter alia, “…providing an assurance that persons injured in vehicular accidents would receive some economic aid in meeting medical expenses and the like, in order not to drive them into dire financial circumstances with the possibility of swelling the public relief rolls.” Allowing the financial arm of the health care provider who renders medical service to recover as an assignee of the insured will serve to further this intent. To rule otherwise would offend the purpose of the statute.
It is therefore:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
* * *
