9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 707a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Where document directs payment to medical provider and states that it is a direct assignment of insured’s rights and benefits under policy, there remains a question of fact regarding intent of insured and medical provider which makes insurer’s motion for summary judgment premature
RODERIC A. LACY, P.A., Plaintiff, vs. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. SC0 00 10859, Division 71. August 12, 2002. C. Jeffrey Arnold, Judge. Counsel: Glenn E. Siegel, Boca Raton. David T. White, III, Orlando.Order Denying Defendant’s Motion forFinal Summary Judgment
This action was heard on July 16, 2002 on the Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment. This Court having thoroughly considered the Motion, and after hearing the arguments of both parties finds as follows:
1. This matter concerns a lawsuit filed for personal injury protection benefits that relates to treatment rendered by Roderic A. Lacy, P.A. Lacy, who provided chiropractic treatment to the patient, Joseph Fritsnel, sued Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company in order to collect insurance benefits.
2. Lacy brought this claim based on a form signed by Fritsnel titled “ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS/MEDICAL RELEASE” which read in part:
I hereby instruct and direct Metropolitan Insurance Company to pay by check to Roderic A. Lacy, D.C. for the medical benefits allowable, and otherwise payable to me under my current insurance policy as payment toward the total charges for the professional services rendered and/or supplies provided. THIS IS A DIRECT ASSIGNMENT OF MY RIGHTS AND BENEFITS UNDER THIS POLICY. This payment will not exceed my indebtedness to the above mentioned assignee, and I have agreed to pay, in a current manner, any balance of said professional service charge over and above this insurance payment.
3. This Court considered the affidavit of Debbie Tahse, a PIP litigation adjuster on behalf of Metropolitan, which read in part: “METLIFE received a purported Assignment of Benefits from Mr. FRITSNEL to LACY executed on July 7, 1998. There is no language in the Assignment of Benefits which conveys or assigns MR. FRITSNEL’s right to sue to Plaintiff.”
4. This Court also considered the affidavit of Debbie Lamkin, the office manager at Roderic A. Lacy, P.A., which read in part: “It is the understanding and intent of Roderic A. Lacy, P.A., that Joseph Fritsnel signed the Assignment of Benefits for the purpose of assigning his rights and benefits of his automobile insurance coverage to Roderic A. Lacy, P.A. . . . These rights and benefits include assigning the right to pursue any claim that may need to be made against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company directly to Roderic A. Lacy, P.A.”
5. Although it is this Court’s opinion that the document in question was inartfully drawn by the Plaintiff, it is this Court’s ruling that there remains a question of fact regarding the intent of Lacy and Fritsnel, the parties to the ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS/MEDICAL RELEASE, which makes the Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment premature. The parties to this lawsuit may proceed with discovery and depositions to determine the intent behind this document, after which time this Motion may be re-addressed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is hereby denied without prejudice to re-new.
* * *
