9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 706a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Where there is no evidence that assignee accepted reduced payments under protest with notice to insurer of intent to seek full amount of bills, and after policy limits were exhausted assignee filed suit seeking to recover difference between amount billed and amount paid out, summary judgment is granted in favor of insurer
JOHN ORTOLANI, M.D., a/a/o Jamie Antrum, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE BAYSIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2001-34140-COCI. June 3, 2002. Peter F. Marshall, Judge. Counsel: Frederick S. Jaeger, Jr., Daytona Beach. Chandra L. Miller, St. Petersburg.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This cause having come on to be heard pursuant to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court having taken notice of the court file, having listened to the arguments of counsel and otherwise being fully advised of the premises; the Court makes the following finding upon which it enters this Summary Judgment for the Defendant.
Jamie Antrum, the insured, had a policy with the Defendant that provided for personal injury protection (PIP). On or about October 15, 1998, she was injured in a motor vehicle accident. She received medical treatment from the Plaintiff for her injuries. At this time the insured executed an assignment of benefits to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff submitted bills to the Defendant for the services rendered to the insured. The Defendant made reductions to these bills and paid the Plaintiff a lesser amount. The Plaintiff accepted these reduced payments. The Defendant continued to receive bills from other providers who treated the insured. The Defendant continued to pay these bills until the policy limits were met, at which time the Defendant ceased paying. After the policy limits were exhausted, the Plaintiff filed suit seeking to recover the difference in the amount billed to the Defendant and the amount paid by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff argues that he has a valid cause of action based upon recent litigation on the issue of improper reductions made by insurers. The Defendant argues that the insured’s policy with the Defendant provided a limited amount of coverage. The Defendant has paid out the limits of the coverage. As the assignee of the insured, the Plaintiff is not entitled to receive any more than the insured. Further, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff accepted the reduced payments under protest with notice to the Defendant of his intent to seek the full amount of the bills submitted, VTC Testing Center of Orlando North, Inc. d/b/a National Testing Centers, as assignee for Brenda Bunte v. Allstate, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 568a, (County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Case No. SCO 00-3964, June 26, 2001.) It is therefore,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED and that Judgment is entered for the Defendant.
* * *
