9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 55a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Dispute between medical provider and insurer — Standing — Assignment — Where document calls itself an assignment and transfers the right to receive insurance proceeds from insured to medical provider, and it is apparent from insurer’s direct payments to medical provider that insurer regarded itself as justified in paying the medical provider claiming to be assignee, document is valid assignment despite fact that insured remains responsible for payment and collection efforts — Insurer’s motion for summary judgment denied
Med+Plus Medical Clinics, Inc., as assignee of Jose Cruz, Plaintiff, vs. Bankers Insurance Company, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County. Case No. 2000-CC-1073. November 19, 2001. Frederick A. DeFuria, Judge. Counsel: Jeffrey A. Luhrsen, Luhrsen & Associates, P.A., Sarasota. Beth Moriarty, Winter Park.
ORDER
This matter came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Being fully advised, the Court finds as follows:
1. In this Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance dispute, Defendant seeks Summary Judgment based upon its argument that Plaintiff lacks standing due to an invalid assignment of benefits.
2. Plaintiff argues that the insured actually assigned his PIP benefits to the Plaintiff by way of a written document and, furthermore, that the insured equitably assigned his benefits to the Plaintiff.
3. The written document is signed by the assignor and is drafted in the first person from his perspective. It reads, inter alia:
With respect to any and all other actions necessary to obtain payment from any insurance company, HMO or PPO liable for any part or all of the clinic charges, I agree the responsibility therefore shall remain at all times with the insured and the policyholder as provided in such policy, regardless of any action by the clinic concerning collection, and it is hereby specifically agreed and acknowledged that the clinic shall not be liable for any failure in collection.
. . .
ASSIGNMENT OF INSURANCE BENEFITS: I hereby authorize, request and direct any and all third parties to pay directly to the clinic any insurance benefits/checks, including liability insurance, for Med+Plus Medical Clinics, Inc. having provided services. I authorize my employer and my insurance company, HMO or PPO to cooperate with Med+Plus Medical Clinics, Inc. It is my expressed desire that Med+Plus Medical Clinics, Inc. be paid before any benefits are paid to the patient, our attorney, or myself. I agree that should the amount be insufficient to cover the entire medical bill expense, I will be responsible to the clinic for payment of the entire bill.
4. In its Memorandum of Law supporting its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant argues that the language quoted, supra, creates a mere “direction to pay” rather than an “assignment” because the insured remains responsible for payment and collection efforts.
5. In two recent District level decisions, appellate courts have found that there is no bar to an assignor serving as guarantor. See Oglesby v. State Farm, 781 So.2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Livingston v. State Farm, 774 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). These cases also stand for the proposition that, after benefits are assigned to a medical provider, the medical provider and only the provider has standing to pursue a cause of action.
6. This brings us to the issue of what constitutes an assignment. Neither the legislature nor the Department of Insurance has issued any official guidance along these lines. However, the Florida Supreme Court has spoken to the issue multiple times, and several District Courts have followed these decisions. A review of this jurisprudence is helpful in resolving the case at bar.
7. Simply stated, the black letter rule of assignment creation is: any instruction, document or act that vests in one party the right to receive funds arguably due to another party operates as an equitable assignment. See McClure v. Century Estates, Inc., 96 Fla. 568, 120 So. 4 (Fla. 1928).
8. In McClure, Mr. Kirkpatrick made half of a promissory note for $25,000.00 payable to a third party. The Supreme Court held that this action operated as an equitable assignment of $12,500.00 from Mr. Kirkpatrick to the third party. Id. at 583. The McClure Court wrote:
It clearly appears from the note for $12,500 and the mortgage that there was some contract, agreement, or understanding between Lex J. Kirkpatrick, complainant’s intestate, and O. L. Stuart, L. F. Vaught, and H. P. Munck, whereby $12,500 of the purchase price of the land, with the security accompanying it, was to be made payable to the last three parties named above, who at that time constituted the copartnership of Stuart, Vaught, and Munck.
Id.
. . .
[I]t would seem, from the face of the mortgage and notes, that $12,500 evidenced by one of the notes due in one year and made payable to O. L . Stuart, L. F. Vaught, and H. P. Munck, was an equitable assignment by Lex J. Kirkpatrick to the payees named in this note of that portion of the balance due on the purchase money.
Id.
. . .
As we have said, the documents in the instant case, on their face, show an equitable assignment of a part of the indebtedness due complainant’s intestate, for any order, writing, or act which plainly makes an appropriation of a fund or debt, or a part of a fund or debt, may amount to an equitable assignment.
Id., at 586
. . .
From what we have said, in reaching our conclusions on the questions already considered in this case, the court below correctly found that the action of Lex J. Kirkpatrick, complainant’s intestate, in having the note for $12,500 made payable to Stuart, Vaught & Munck, was an equitable assignment of this portion of the balance due on the purchase money, to the payees named in the note, or to their order.
Id., at 588.
9. The McClure Court explained its conclusion by discussing these black letter rules of law:
Any words or transactions which show an intention on the one side to assign, and an intention on the other to receive, if there is a valuable consideration, will operate as an effective equitable assignment . . . Any order, writing or act which makes an appropriation of a debt or funds amounts to an equitable assignment thereof.
Id., at 583.
. . .
The true test of an equitable assignment is whether the debtor would be justified in paying the debt to the person claiming as assignee. And such assignments may be parol; or partly in writing and partly oral.
10. The rules enunciated by the McClure Court have been followed through the years. In Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Air Metal Industries, 176 So.2d 94, 98 (Fla. 1965), the Florida Supreme Court wrote:
Formal requisites of an assignment are not prescribed by statute and it may be accomplished by parol, by instrument in writing, or other mode, such as delivery of evidences of the debt, as may demonstrate an intent to transfer and an acceptance of it.
11. In State Farm v. Ray, 556 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), the Court wrote:
An assignment is defined as “a transfer or setting over of property or of some right or interest therein, from one person to another. It is the act by which one person transfers to another, or causes to vest in another, his right of property or interest therein.” (internal citations omitted).
12. In the case at bar, the written document plainly states that Med+Plus is to have first priority of payment in terms of any insurance proceeds. Plainly, this is a transfer of the assignor’s right to receive payment from himself to Med+Plus.
13. In Giles v. SunBank, NA, 450 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) , the Court cited McClure, writing:
No particular words or form of instrument is necessary to effect an equitable assignment and any language, however informal, which shows an intention on one side to assign a right or chose in action and an intention on the other to receive, if there is a valuable consideration, will operate as an effective equitable assignment. . . As stated in McClure, the true test of an equitable assignment is whether the debtor would be justified in paying the debt to the person claiming as assignee.
14. In the present case, it is undisputed that Banker’s paid Med+Plus directly. Consequently, it is apparent that the debtor insurance company in the case at bar regarded itself as justified in paying the party claiming as an assignee, Med+Plus.
15. Like the document discussed by the Ray Court, the current document calls itself an “assignment” and transfers the right to receive insurance proceeds from the policyholder to a third party. In holding that this was an assignment, the Ray Court merely followed the Supreme Court’s rationale in deciding McClure. Thus, Florida law on this point is clear: any instruction, document or act that vests in one party the right to receive funds arguably due to another party operates as an assignment.
16. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the document in question is a valid assignment of insurance benefits from the insured to the medical provider.
17. ACCORDINGLY, it appears that the instant Motion is not well-taken and the same is HEREBY DENIED.
* * *
