8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 502a
Insurance — Dismissal — Assignment — Motion to dismiss complaint on grounds that provider lacked standing was improvidently granted because court went beyond four corners of the complaint to evaluate document not attached to complaint that provider claimed was an assignment of benefits — Conclusory allegation of assignment of benefits was sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss — Order granting motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions vacated
MED+PLUS MEDICAL CLINICS, INC., AS ASSIGNEE OF PAMELA MCCLAIN, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County. Case No. 2000-9310-SC. May 14, 2001. Emanuel LoGalbo, Judge. Counsel: Jeffrey A. Luhrsen, Sarasota. Stephen Diaco, Tampa.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR REHEARING
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing. Being fully advised, the Court finds as follows:
1. The Court previously granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions.
2. Defendant’s Motion was based on an argument that Plaintiff lacked standing.
3. In considering Defendant’s Motion, the Court evaluated a document Plaintiff claimed was an assignment of benefits that was not attached to the initial pleading.
4. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.130 does not require documents evidencing standing to be attached to pleadings, unless the suit is for breach of the assignment itself. See Trawick, Fla. Prac. and Proc., §6-15.
5. In evaluating the document that was not attached to the initial pleading, the Court erroneously went beyond the four-corners of the Complaint.
6. In considering a Motion to Dismiss, the Second District synopsized the rule1 as follows:
[T]he trial court is confined to the four corners of the complaint, and all its material allegations must be taken as true. See Davidson v. Iona-McGregor Fire Protection and Rescue Dist., 674 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Holland v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 643 So.2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
7. In the present case, Plaintiff pleaded (see paragraph 15): “Pamela McClain assigned said PIP benefits to Med+Plus Medical Clinics, Inc.”
8. Under the Davis rule, the trial court is required to take this well-pleaded allegation as true.
9. The sufficiency of a conclusory pleading alleging assignment of benefits was considered in Parkway General Hospital v. Allstate, 393 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981). The Parkway Court specifically found that alleging an assignment was sufficient to withstand a Motion to Dismiss, writing:
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to ascertain if plaintiff has alleged a good cause of action, and the court must confine itself strictly to allegations within the four-corners of the complaint. Consideration of defendant’s affirmative defenses or sufficiency of evidence which plaintiff will likely produce on the merits is wholly irrelevant and immaterial to deciding a motion to dismiss. Pizzi v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 250 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1971); Kest v. Nathanson, 216 So.2d 233, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA *1173 1968); Stone v. Stone, 97 So.2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957). Parkway’s allegation of assignment in Count VI of its complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action against Allstate as required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110.
Id., at 1173. (Emphasis supplied).
10. The Court finds that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions was improvidently granted because the Court went beyond the four-corners of the pleading.
11. Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing is HEREBY GRANTED and the Court’s previous Order is HEREBY VACATED.
12. The Court reserves jurisdiction to tax fees and costs pursuant to §627.428, Florida Statutes.
__________________
1See Davis v. Bell, 705 So.2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
* * *
