9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 148a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Revocation — Where medical provider to which insured had assigned PIP benefits made demand for arbitration several months before insured executed revocation of assignment, revocation was meaningless — Error to deny insurer’s motion for summary judgment since insured did not have standing to maintain suit
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, vs. SANDRA EDWARDS, Appellee. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Orange County. Case No. CVA199-66. November 29, 2001. Appeal from the County Court for Orange County, Jerry L. Brewer, Judge. Counsel: William K. Pratt, II, for Appellant. Peter A. Shapiro, for Appellee.
(Before COHEN, WHITE, GRINCEWICZ, JJ.)
FINAL ORDER AND OPINION REVERSING TRIAL COURT
(PER CURIAM.) This is an appeal by Defendant/Appellant, Allstate Indemnity Company (“Allstate”), of the judgment entered in the trial court in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellee, Sandra Edwards (“Edwards”), in accordance with a jury verdict after trial. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(1). After consideration of the record on appeal and parties’ briefs, this Court dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320 and vacates the final judgment.
Allstate was Edwards’s insurer. Edwards was injured in a car accident and had an MRI performed on her by Regional MRI of Orlando (“Regional MRI”). On March 13, 1998, Edwards executed an assignment of benefits in favor of Regional MRI. On September 17, 1998, Regional MRI served on Allstate a demand for arbitration, and Allstate responded and accepted Regional MRI’s demand for arbitration, on January 10, 1999.
On August 28, 1998, Edwards filed a breach of contract action against Allstate to recover personal injury protection benefits. An Amended Complaint was filed on October 23, 1998, and Allstate answered the Complaint on October 28, 1998. On March 17, 1999, an order granting a partial summary judgment was entered, resolving two of Edwards’s three claims. The only remaining claim sought compensation for the MRI performed by Regional MRI.
On May 21, 1999, Allstate served a Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion to Substitute Real Party in Interest alleging that Edwards lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because she had assigned her rights to Regional MRI. Also on May 21, 1999, Edwards executed a Revocation of Assignment of Insurance Benefits. Hearings were held regarding the motion for summary judgment on June 11 and June 18, 1999. Judge Brewer found that Edwards had standing to proceed with the instant lawsuit. The case was tried before a jury, and a judgment was entered in favor of Edwards. The trial court denied Allstate’s Motion for New Trial/Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
Allstate raises three issues for review: 1) whether the trial court erred in denying summary judgment and finding that Edwards had standing to sue, in light of the assignment; 2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in precluding Allstate from presenting testimony regarding Edwards’s assignment of her benefits; and 3) whether the trial court erred in granting Edwards’s allegedly overbroad discovery requests. This Court concludes that Appellant’s first issue requires relief, and thus addresses that issue only.
An appellate court must review de novo the legal basis for a trial court’s denial of a summary judgment. See Walsingham v. Dockery, 671 So. 2d 166, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In addition, in viewing the record as a whole, the court must view all possible inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Carter v. United of Omaha Life Insurance, 685 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Allstate argues that Edwards’s revocation of the assignment was invalid because Regional MRI had demanded arbitration and Allstate had accepted the demand, at the time the attempted revocation was executed. Allstate cites to State Farm v. Gonnella, 677 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In Gonnella, the Gonnellas’ initial suit against State Farm was dismissed based on the assignment of benefits. Id. at 1356. State Farm filed a demand for arbitration and arbitration commenced. Id. Before arbitration concluded, the Gonnellas executed a revocation of the assignment. Id. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that “the right and obligation to arbitrate vested, at the latest, upon State Farm’s demand for arbitration. [Therefore], the Gonnellas’ later revocation of the assignment was meaningless.” Id. at 1357.
Edwards argues that a case from this Court supports her assertion that the revocation of her assignment was valid. See Poke v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 5 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 643a (9th Cir. Ct. June 8, 1998). However, Poke is distinguishable from the instant case. In Poke, no demand for arbitration had been made prior to the initiation of Poke’s lawsuit or prior to the execution of the revocation of assignment. Hence, there was no intervening event to preclude Poke from revoking the assignment.
In the instant case, the record reflects that Regional MRI made a demand for arbitration several months before Edwards executed her revocation of assignment. Accordingly, pursuant to State Farm v. Gonnella, 677 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), this Court finds that Edwards’s revocation of the assignment was meaningless, she did not have standing to maintain this suit, and the trial court should have granted Allstate’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Final Judgment in favor of Edwards is VACATED, and the case REMANDED with instructions that the trial court enter an order granting Allstate’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
* * *
