8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 849c
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment — Evidence and course of conduct reflect intent of parties for benefits to have been assigned — Insurance company’s reliance on assignment is indication that document is actual assignment — Document that states word assignment in more than one location and contains language authorizing the release of information and instructions to assignee’s attorney concerning potential settlement is more than direct payment authorization
PHYSICIAN’S INJURY CENTER, INC., (As Assignee of Evelyn Bitzer), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 2000-7142 SC, Division I. October 23, 2001. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., Tampa. Joseph F. Diaco.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on October 4, 2001, on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, both parties appearing through counsel and the Court having heard argument of counsel, makes the following findings:
(1) The deposition transcripts and Affidavits filed in the record, along with the course of conduct of the parties, reflect an intent of the parties for the benefits to have been assigned in this claim. If the insurance company relies on the assignment of benefits, this is one indication that the document is an actual assignment.
(2) The document filed as “Exhibit A” to Plaintiff’s complaint, entitled “Release of Information Assignment of Payment Instructions For Direct Payment to Clinic” is much more than just a direct payment authorization. The terms of this document are ambiguous. As such, the court may look to other evidence in the record, as stated above. The document states the word “Assignment” in more than one location. This document also contains language authorizing the release of information, along with instructions to the assignee’s attorney concerning potential settlement.
Based upon the aforementioned findings by the court, it is hereby:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.
* * *
