9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 567a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Claim form — Countersignature — Insured does not have to countersign insurance claim form as condition precedent to insurer paying claim to assignee medical provider — Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment granted
DR. STEVEN BROWN, as assignee for Jerome Johnson, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 01-025206 (54). June 26, 2002. Zebedee W. Wright, Judge. Counsel: Cris Boyar, for Plaintiff. Matt Helman, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on June 26, 2002 and the Court having reviewed the pleadings and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
The Plaintiff medical provider filed suit against the Defendant insurance company for PIP benefits. The Plaintiff attached a valid assignment of benefits to the complaint. The Defendant filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses. The Plaintiff seeks a Partial Summary Judgment on the Affirmative Defense found in paragraph Number 23.
In this affirmative defense, the Defendant alleges the patient failed to countersign an invoice, bill or claim form as required by Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(a). The Court finds the defendant’s argument is without because the patient does not have to countersign the Health Insurance Claim form. Florida law does not require the patient to countersign an invoice, bill or health insurance claim form as a condition precedent to the insurer paying the claim to the assignee medical provider. See Dr. Steven Chase v. United Automobile, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 458 (Fla. Dade Cty Court 2001); The Premier Center for Personal Injuries v. United, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 501 (Fla. Dade Cty Court 2001); USA Diagnostics v. Star Casualty, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 851 (Fla. Broward Cty Court 2001, Judge Herring); Choice Medical Center v. Seminole, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 196 (Fla. Palm Beach Cty Court 2002); Northwest Broward Orthopaedics v. Progressive, Case Number 01-23971 (50) (Fla. Broward Cty Court 2002, Judge Skolnik) [9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 487b]; ROM DIAGNOSTICS v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 392a (Fla. 9th Circuit Court 2002); South Florida Open Mri, Plaintiff, v. United Automobile Insurance Company, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397a (Fla. Dade Cty Court 2002); USA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. STAR CASUALTY, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 410b (Fla. Broward Cty Court 2002, Judge Herring); South Florida MRI v. United Auto. Insurance Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397 (Fla. Dade Cty Court 2002); Health Care Associates of Florida v. United Auto. Insurance Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397 (Fla. Dade Cty Court 2002, Judge Adderly). This Court finds these decisions persuasive and well reasoned. There has been a long standing policy of Florida Courts to construe the PIP statute liberally in favor of coverage and the insured. Palma v. State Farm, 489 So.2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff Motion for Partial Summary judgment as to this affirmative defense with prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary judgment is granted for the reasons stated above.
* * *
