8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 682a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Error to enter summary judgment as to issue of standing where insurer claims that plaintiff made complete assignment of benefits and insured insists document she signed was not intended to be assignment — Necessity for making finding as to whether there was true assignment would preclude summary judgment
CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. FORRESTINE WILLIAMS o/b/o LAROSSA WILLIAMS, Appellee. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Orange County. Case No. CVA 199-64. Appeal from the County Court for Orange County, Jerry L. Brewer, Judge. Counsel: Robert A. Freyer, for Appellant. Jeffrey W. Albert, for Appellee.
(Before CONRAD, PRATHER, WATTLES, JJ.)FINAL
ORDER AND OPINION REVERSING TRIAL COURT
(PER CURIAM.) This is an appeal by Defendant/Appellant, Clarendon National Insurance Company (“Clarendon”), of the trial court’s order granting motion for summary judgment regarding standing, filed by Plaintiff/Appellee, Forrestine Williams o/b/o Larossa Williams (“Williams”), and denying Clarendon’s motion for summary judgment. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(1). After consideration of the record on appeal and parties’ briefs, this Court dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320 and reverses the trial court’s order.
On August 11, 1997, Williams filed an action against Clarendon seeking relief for damages related to no-fault, personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits which were alleged to have been due for chiropractic services performed by Orlando Chiropractic Group. Clarendon raised the affirmative defense that Williams had no standing to pursue the claim against it because she had previously assigned her benefits under her policy with Clarendon to Orlando Chiropractic Group.
On November 12, 1998, Clarendon filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Williams lacked standing to pursue the claim against it because of her previous assignment of benefits to Orlando Chiropractic Group. Shortly thereafter, Williams filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgement as to the issue of standing, as well as the issue of benefits due and entitlement to attorney’s fees. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Williams’s Motion for Summary Judgment as it related to standing, and denying Clarendon’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On June 16, 1999, Williams filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgment. On July 14, 1999, the trial court entered its Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, wherein it granted Williams’s Motion and ordered Clarendon to pay $2,000.00 to Williams. It is this order which Clarendon appeals. Clarendon argues that a document executed by Williams, effected an assignment of benefits to Orlando Chiropractic Group. Clarendon also argues that this assignment was irrevocable and deprived Williams of her standing to maintain the lawsuit against it.
“Summary judgments present a classic example of the type of decisions that are subject to the de novo standard of review.” See Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 12 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice 148 (2d ed. 1997)). “The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether any issues of material fact exist for resolution by a trier of fact.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pasco County, 660 So. 2d 757, 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving a negative, that is “the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon, 772 So. 2d 546, 550 (Fla. lst DCA 2000). On review, the appellate court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must draw all competing inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See McCraney v. Barberi, 677 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
In a recent case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed an order of arbitration, and remanded the case for the county court to determine the existence of any assignment. See Garcia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 766 So. 2d 430, 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Although that case was not founded on a motion for summary judgment, the court stated that whether there was a true assignment of benefits was a fact question. Id. at 432.
In the instant case, Clarendon insisted that Williams had assigned all her rights under the policy to Orlando Chiropractic Group, and Williams insisted that the document she signed was not intended to be an assignment. Accordingly, the necessity for such a finding of fact would preclude entry of summary judgment in the instant case.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s Order granting Williams’s motion for summary judgment as to standing is REVERSED.
* * *