8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 455a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Action by MRI provider against insurer for payment of assigned PIP benefits — Indication of assignment on form sent by plaintiff to insurer together with fact that plaintiff sent billing documentation directly to insurer was sufficient to impose a duty on insurer to investigate whether the insured had assigned benefits to plaintiff prior to making payment — Assignment not invalid due to alleged inconsistency in the taxpayer I.D. numbers provided by plaintiff — Where plaintiff received valid assignment of benefits from the insured, and insurer knew or should have known about the existence of such assignment, payment of benefits to the insured did not relieve insurer of its obligation to make payment to plaintiff — Motion for summary judgment in favor of plaintiff granted
PHYMATRIX MANAGEMENT COMPANY, d/b/a CENTRAL MAGNETIC IMAGING, Plaintiff, vs. OCEAN HARBOR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County. Case No. 99-20706 SP 23 (01). April 12, 2001. Myriam Lehr, Judge. Counsel: Kenneth J. Dorchak, North Miami, for Plaintiff. Michael Packer, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on March 8, 2001 on the Plaintiff, PHYMATRIX MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.’S Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant, OCEAN HARBOR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY’S Motion for Summary Judgment, and after being fully advised of the premises thereof it is:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court makes the following findings of fact:
1. That on November 13, 1998 the Plaintiff provided medical services to the Defendant’s insured Dennis Badalow (hereinafter “insured”) at a charge of $1,500.00 for a lumbar MRI scan.
2. That on November 13, 1998 the Plaintiff received from the insured an assignment of the insurance rights and benefits payable to the insured under the policy of PIP insurance issued by the Defendant to its insured.
3. That there is no dispute in this matter that the services provided were medically necessary or related to the automobile accident involving the Defendant’s insured or as to the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s charges.
4. That the Plaintiff submitted notice of its charges to the Defendant which notice was received by the Defendant on November 23, 1998.
5. That the Defendant, as a result of the notice provided by the Plaintiff, was on notice of the fact the Plaintiff had received an assignment of benefits from the insured. The Court finds that the HFCA 1500 form received from the Plaintiff indicated the existence of an assignment and that this fact together with the fact that the Plaintiff directly sent the billing documentation to the Defendant was sufficient to impose a duty upon the Defendant to investigate whether or not the insured had assigned the insurance benefits to the Plaintiff prior to making payment.
6. That on February 9, 1999 the Defendant made payment of the assigned insurance benefits directly to its insured.
7. Plaintiff has not received payment of it charges and has filed the above styled lawsuit against the Defendant to collect the assigned insurance benefits.
As a result of the Court’s findings and there being no disputed issue of material fact, the Court finds that in accordance with the principals set forth in Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Air Metals Industries, Inc., 176 So.2d 94 (Fla. 1965), the Plaintiff’s assignment is valid and the Defendant’s argument that such assignment is invalid due to an alleged inconsistency in the taxpayer I.D. numbers provided by the Plaintiff is rejected.
This Court having found that the Plaintiff did in fact receive a valid assignment of benefits from the insured and that Defendant knew or should have known about the existence of such assignment, (see Farish v. Smoot, 58 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1952) “whatever is sufficient to put a person on inquiry amounts in point of law to notice”) the Court holds that payment of the benefits to the insured did not relieve the Defendant of its obligation to make payment to the Plaintiff, see Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, 591 So.2d 953 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991), and accordingly the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Plaintiff, PHYMATRIX MANAGEMENT COMPANY, 1860 N.E. Miami Gardens Drive, North Miami Beach, FL 33445, do and shall recover from the Defendant OCEAN HARBOR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, the amount of $1,200.00 as assigned insurance benefits together with interest in the amount of $274.20, which interest is calculated at a per diem rate of $0.328 for 836 days representing the time between the date of receipt of the bill through the date of hearing on this motion. Therefore, the Plaintiff shall recover from the Defendant the amount of $1,474.20 for which let execution issue. This judgment shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum until paid.
The Court reserves jurisdiction for purposes of determining the amount of costs and attorneys fees to be awarded to Plaintiff.
* * *
