Defendant State Farm’s insured, Mark Kundrat, was allegedly involved in a car accident on July 9, 2009. Kundrat sought treatment for injuries sustained in the accident from Plaintiff Terlep Chiropractic. On November 22, 2010, Terlep filed a cause of action against State Farm, alleging failure to pay PIP benefits. As an affirmative defense, State Farm argued that Terlep Chiropractic lacked standing to bring the cause of action. Terlep argued that a “Financial Policy & Consent Form” signed by Kundrat as a condition of receiving treatment conveyed to Terlep the right to bring any and all causes of action against State Farm.
The document signed by Kundrat, and upon which Terlep relies, contains a paragraph entitled “Assignment of Benefits.” In that paragraph, Kundrat assigned payment directly to Terlep Chiropractic and agreed that he is financially responsible for charges not covered by the assignment or which the insurer declines to pay. The court found that this language unambiguously serves only to direct payment by the insurance company to the medical provider and that there is no language conveying any and all rights, including the right to bring any and all causes of action. Because the language in the instant case does not convey a full assignment of any and all benefits and rights under the policy, the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring this cause of action against Defendant.
Terlep, in turn, argues that State Farm lacks standing to challenge the assignment of benefits because it lacks privity of contract. The court points out, however, that State Farm is not challenging the contract between Terlep and Kundrat. Rather, State Farm is raising the issue of the interpretation of the “assignment of benefits” part of the agreement.
Terlep further argues that it has standing to bring the cause of action based on equitable assignment. The court concludes that the cases upon which Terlep relies for this argument should be distinguished because they involved situations in which the documents contained ambiguities and inconsistencies. In this case, the document at issue is “clear and unambiguous,” and therefore equitable principles do not apply.
Plaintiff’s final argument is that it is the real party in interest and that entry of final judgment against it would deny it a remedy at law. The document provides, however, that the insured is financially responsible for any payments not made to Plaintiff, and any cause of action is therefore between Kundrat and State Farm.
The court granted Defendant State Farm’s motion for full and final summary judgment.
The case is Terlep Chiropractic v. State Farm, Circuit Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County. Case No. 10-006194-SC. December 5, 2013.