Volume 7

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 150a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Fees awarded to insured’s assignee — Contingency risk multiplier not appropriate in instant case

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 627b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment — Priority of payments — Insurer may not randomly select order in which it will pay or apply medical expenses to a deductible — Insurer improperly applied health care provider’s charges to deductible rather than hospital charges which were received prior to health care charges, based upon belief that it was in best of interest of insured to pay hospital bill which might potentially impose lien on insured’s property — Once insured assigned his right to benefits to medical providers, his interests were no longer insurer’s concern and insurer became merely a holder of funds which were subject to competing claims — Where there were competing claims among persons claiming assignment of benefits, insurer should have paid benefits and applied deductible based upon order in which it received medical bills — Under facts of case, receipt of actual copy of signed assignment was not required before insurer applied deductible — Insurer may not raise payment of its policy limits as defense to erroneous method of applying the deductible — Decision establishing rights of assignee regarding priority of payments made by insurer does not impose judgment exceeding insured’s policy limits

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 87a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment of benefits to health care provider — Evidence — Insurer’s senior claims representative was not competent to authenticate health insurance claim forms signed by insured and forwarded to insurer by insured’s medical providers — Forms were not admissible under business records exception to hearsay rule because forms were completed by medical providers, not by insurer — Insurer’s claims representative was not custodian of the forms or otherwise qualified to testify as to the method of preparation and reliability of the forms — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of insurer on ground that insured was deprived of standing by de facto assignment where that determination was based in part on inadmissible evidence

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 343a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment — Standing — Plaintiff, by having assigned her benefits to healthcare providers, did not have standing to file action for payment of bills from healthcare providers — Insurer’s motion for directed verdict granted, and cause dismissed without prejudice

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 695a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment — Document titled “Assignment and Instruction for Direct Payment to Doctor” which was signed by insured was unqualified assignment of benefits, and, therefore, insured lacks standing to assert claim for charges arising from treatment or services rendered by medical provider/assignee — Fact that insured remains responsible to assignee for any amounts not paid by insurer does not act as limitation of qualification on rights being assigned to assignee — Letter from assignee to assignor/insured requesting that its bill be included in PIP suit did not constitute revocation of assignment or unqualified assignment back to insured — Insurer entitled to partial summary judgment with prejudice only as to standing or ability of insured to pursue claim for recovery of charges from subject medical provider

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 414b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Assignment — Insured, as matter of law, lacks standing to bring action to recover payment for medical bills — Policy language requiring written consent by insurer to an assignment does not bar assignment of after-loss claims — Further, insurer treated assignment as being valid and operative by making payments to medical provider on insured’s claim, even though assignment was undated and blank as to provider and insurer — Fact that insured remains liable to medical providers to extent that insurer does not pay all of providers’ bills, does not give insured sufficient stake in outcome of litigation, which does not encompass more than permissible extent of first party PIP benefits

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 211b

Insurance — Assignment — Standing — Insured has standing to bring cause of action because assignment of benefits signed by insured is qualified assignment in that insured remains financially responsible for payment of provider’s charges — Dismissal or remand for arbitration not required because there has been reassignment of benefits to insured — Insured has consent of assignee to bring cause of action where reassignment of benefits was executed prior to filing of action — Because insured remains fully responsible for all charges incurred with medical provider, she has both legitimate interest in matter sufficient to warrant asking court to entertain it and sufficient interest at stake in controversy which will be affected by outcome of litigation to vest her with standing to maintain cause of action

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 239i

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 435b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Arbitration — Dispute between insurer and medical providers to whom insured had assigned rights under policy — Revocation of assignment — Where insured had assigned rights under policy to medical providers, but providers authorized revocation of the assignments by signing revocations, and where revocations were received prior to notification of a claims dispute, section 682.02 of Florida Arbitration Code, which provides that written agreement to arbitrate is irrevocable, does not apply

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 435b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Insured who assigned benefits to medical care providers who agreed to accept the assignment lacked standing to bring suit against insurer — Lack of standing at time suit was filed not cured by revocation of assignments after suit was filed

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 777b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — No error in denying insurer’s motion to abate and compel arbitration of actions filed by medical provider as attorney in fact for insureds — If authorization form executed by insured were limited power of attorney, arbitration is not required under statute or policy — If authorization is found to be assignment, statutory provision requiring arbitration between insurers and medical services providers when medical service providers receive assignment of benefits has been held unconstitutional — Insurer’s argument regarding impairment of obligation of contract fails because unconstitutional statutory provision specifically directed that all PIP insurance policies include mandatory arbitration provision, and insurer admitted that contractual provision was placed in its policy only after the statutory provision so directed it to be placed