9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 326b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Dispute between medical provider and insurer — Standing — Assignment — Document which authorizes and directs payment of benefits to medical provider and assigns to provider any causes of action insured may have against any insurance obligated to insured for payment of service and treatment does not indicate that the insurance policy was assigned and is not invalid pursuant to policy provision prohibiting assignment of any interest in the policy without written consent of insurer — There is no unbargained-for risk to insurer from assignment since assignment occurred after date of loss, which by terms of policy occurred at time of accident, not at time PIP benefits became overdue
MEDICAL EVALUATION CENTERS, INC., as assignee of ALFRED GAINES, Plaintiff, vs. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 00-17934-CC/J. April 3, 2002. Paul L. Huey, Judge. Counsel: Alexander Billias, Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Andrew D. Reeder, Reynolds & Stowell, P.A., for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKEPLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on February 15, 2002 on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim for Attorney’s Fees, (certificate date November 20, 2001), both parties appearing through counsel and having presented the following arguments:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. This personal injury protection litigation involves UCR reductions of medical bills submitted by Plaintiff for treatment to the insured/assignor, Alfred Gaines.
2. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim for Attorney’s Fees wherein it alleges, inter alia, that the language of the policy issued to Alfred Gaines specifically prohibits the assignment of any interest in the policy without the written consent of Metropolitan by endorsement of the policy, which Alfred Gaines [allegedly] did not obtain prior to purportedly assigning his benefits to Plaintiff.
3. In addition, Defendant alleges that Alfred Gaines failed to receive written consent from Metropolitan prior to executing the purported assignment that Plaintiff is relying on for standing in this case and therefore, the purported assignment is invalid and Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this cause of action.
4. In response, Plaintiff argues that as a matter of public policy, it is well settled that an insured cannot purchase an automobile insurance policy and then transfer or sell the policy to any third party.
5. However, Plaintiff argues there is no language in the assignment of benefits through which the insured/assignor Alfred Gaines transferred his policy to the Plaintiff. The relevant language in the assignment states “… I hereby authorize and direct payment of medical benefits to MCTB/MEC and assign to MCTB/MEC any cause of action I may have against any insurance obligated to me by law, statute or contractual agreement, for payment for such service and treatment.”
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Court does ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows:
6. The purpose of a provision prohibiting assignment of insurance policies is “to protect an insurer against unbargained-for risks.” Lexington Ins. Co. v. Simkins Indus., Inc., 704 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1998).
7. There was no unbargained-for risk in the instant case. Plaintiff is seeking to obtain the same PIP benefits the insured/assignor, Alfred Gaines, was entitled to under his policy of insurance with Metropolitan.
8. The language contained within page nine (9) of the insurance policy indicates that the “loss” occurred at the time of the accident, and not at the time the claim for PIP benefits became overdue as alleged by Defendant.
9. Accordingly, the assignment of benefits by the insured/assignor, Alfred Gaines, occurred after the date of loss.
10. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Simkins Indus., Inc., supra, supports Plaintiff’s position that PIP benefits can be assigned after the loss.
11. In addition, the instant policy language contemplates that other persons would be making a claim for PIP benefits.
12. Classic Concepts, Inc. v. Poland, 570 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), cited by Defendant, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
13. The language in the assignment of benefits does not indicate that the insurance policy was assigned.
14. The insurance policy was not assigned.
15. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim for Attorney’s Fees is hereby DENIED, in its entirety.
* * *
