Equitable Assignments are Prohibited in PIP Suits

2 Key Takeaways – No Merit to Argument that Plaintiff is Entitled to Depose Corporate Representative Where MSJ Raises Purely Legal Issue Regarding Sufficiency of an Assignment of Benefits to Confer Standing on Plaintiff – Equitable Assignments are Prohibited in PIP Suits

            On August 8, 2022, a Hillsborough County Court entered an Order granting the Defendant, insurer’s Motion for Protective Order. Gulf Coast Injury Center, LLC (Russ) v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 382 (13^th Cir. Cty. Ct., Hillsborough County)(Schultz-Kin, Leslie).

The case involved an action for PIP benefits, in which the insurer asserted an affirmative defense alleging that the Plaintiff, medical provider, lacked standing to the extent that it did not have a valid written assignment of benefits. The insurer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, in which the sole issue to be resolved was whether the purported assignment of benefits executed by the patient was legally sufficient to confer standing upon the Plaintiff to bring the lawsuit against the insurer. The insurer subsequently filed a Motion for Protective Order requesting that all depositions of any fact witnesses be postponed until after a hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court ruled on two key issues. First, the Court held that the issue of whether the purported assignment of benefits executed by the patient was sufficient to confer standing upon the Plaintiff is purely a legal issue. As such, the legal issue did not require deposition testimony of Defendant’s Corporate Representative. Second, Florida Statute §627.736(10)(b)1.(2021) requires a written assignment of benefits giving rights to the claimant if the claimant is not the insured prior to brining an action for PIP benefits. The Court goes on to cite case law to clearly demonstrate that it has been expressly held that equitable assignments are prohibited in PIP suits under the PIP statutory scheme.