On March 14, 2000, Paul Tucker, insured by Allstate, was
involved in an automobile collision with John MacEwan. Mr. MacEwan
was injured in the wreck and sought treatment with Alaimo, whoprovided chiropractic care to Mr. MacEwan from March 20, 2000, to
June 29, 2000. On March 20, 2000, Mr. MacEwan signed the
assignment. Alaimo forwarded a copy of the document to Allstate's
claims representative, Leigh Ann Ritter, on March 22, 2000, and
again on April 19, 2000.
In addition to a copy of the assignment, Alaimo sent Allstate
a bill for services rendered to Mr. MacEwan up to and including
March 22, 2000, which amounted to $400. Ms. Ritter advised Alaimo
that she would pay the $400 bill but that Allstate would not be
willing to pay Alaimo for Mr. MacEwan's treatment beyond the
initial two or three visits.
In May 2000, Alaimo informed Allstate that Mr. MacEwan's
injuries were consistent with the type that result from automobile
collisions and that Mr. MacEwan would require 20 to 24 treatments
at an estimated cost of $1500 to $1800. The next month Ms. Ritter
sent a letter to Mr. MacEwan, offering him $1500 to settle his
claim, with $1100 going to Mr. MacEwan and $400 to Alaimo.
Allstate did not send a copy of this letter to Alaimo.
Because it had heard nothing from Allstate, Alaimo sent a
facsimile to Ms. Ritter on April 18, 2001, requesting information
on the status of its claim. Ms. Ritter acknowledged that she had
received the Assignment of Proceeds, Lien and Authorization but
informed Alaimo that Allstate had settled with Mr. MacEwan directly
and had sent the entire $1500 to him. On April 24, 2001, Alaimo
notified Allstate that it had failed to honor the assignment and
demanded full payment of its account. In a letter to Alaimo datedApril 25, 2001, Ms. Ritter indicated that she had previously told
Mr. MacEwan and Alaimo that Allstate would not pay for treatment
beyond the two or three initial visits; that Alaimo and Mr. MacEwan
chose to continue treatment knowing that Allstate would not cover
it; that she had erred in sending $400 of the $1500 settlement to
Mr. MacEwan rather than to Alaimo; and that Allstate was willing to
pay Alaimo $400 if Alaimo would agree to collect the remaining
balance directly from Mr. MacEwan.
Alaimo sued in the district court small claims division in May
2001. The magistrate entered judgment in favor of Alaimo, and
Allstate appealed to the district court. Both parties filed
motions for summary judgment. On November 29, 2001, the district
court granted Alaimo's motion and denied Allstate's motion.
Specifically, the court found that the assignment was valid and
“obligated the Defendant to acknowledge the rights of the Plaintiff
to receive payment out of the insurance proceeds for the medical
treatment the Plaintiff provided.” Allstate now appeals.
Allstate argues that the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment to Alaimo because the assignment did not create a valid
assignment under North Carolina law. Accordingly, Allstate
contends that it, and not Alaimo, is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
An assignment is a formal transfer of property or property
rights from one person (the assignor) to another (the assignee).
Hinshaw v. Wright, 105 N.C. App. 158, 164, 412 S.E.2d 138, 143
(1992). Principles of general contract law determine whether an
assignment is valid.
Martin v. Ray Lackey Enterp., Inc., 100 N.C.
App. 349, 354, 396 S.E.2d 327, 330 (1990). When the parties use
clear and unambiguous terms, the contract should be given its plain
meaning, and the court can determine the parties' intent as a
matter of law.
Id.
Here, the assignment provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
I hereby authorize and direct any and all insurance carriers,
attorneys, agencies, governmental departments, Companies,
individuals, and/or other legal (“payers”), which may elect or
be obligated to pay, provide, or distribute benefits to me for
any medical conditions, accidents, injuries, or illnesses,
past, present, or future (“condition”) to pay directly and
exclusively in the name of Alaimo Chiropractic such sums as
may be owing to Alaimo Chiropractic for charges incurred by me
at the office relating to my condition, with such payment to
be made exclusively in the name of Alaimo Chiropractic. I
further grant a lien to Alaimo Chiropractic with respect to my
charges. This lien shall apply to all payers and to full
extent permitted by law. For the purposes of this document
(herein, “Assignment and Lien”), “benefits” shall include, but
not be limited to, proceeds from any settlement, judgment or
verdict, as well as, any proceeds relating to commercial
health or group insurance, attorney retainer agreements,
medical payments benefits, personal injury protection, no-
fault coverage, uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage,
third party liability distributions, disability benefits, and
any other benefits or proceeds payable for me for the purposes
stated herein.
The parties dispute whether the assignment is unambiguous and,
correspondingly, whether it can be given its plain meaning.
In
Charlotte-Mecklenberg Hospital Authority v. First of
Georgia Insurance Co., our Supreme Court upheld an assignment that
provided:
[T]he undersigned hereby assigns to the Hospital Authority and
each of its facilities that provides services to the patient
all right, title and interest in and to any compensation orpayment in any form that the undersigned received or shall
receive as a result of or arising out of the injuries
sustained by the patient. . . .”
. . .
[T]he undersigned hereby authorizes and directs any person or
corporation having notice of this assignment to pay to the
Hospital Authority directly the amount of the indebtedness
owed to the Hospital Authority in connection with services
rendered to the patient.
340 N.C. 88, 91-92, 455 S.E.2d 655, 657,
reh'g denied, 340 N.C.
364, 458 S.E.2d 186 (1995). These provisions, the Court explained,
“should alleviate any doubt that the assignment required the
defendants to pay the assigned money to the plaintiff.”
Id. at 92,
455 S.E.2d at 657. Thus, the liability carrier was required to pay
the disputed amount to the assignee.
Id., 455 S.E.2d at 658.
Based on a careful reading of the document at issue, we
conclude that in clear and unambiguous terms the language grants
Alaimo an assignment of the insurance proceeds. The first sentence
directs any insurance carriers that may be obligated for Mr.
MacEwan's bills “to pay directly and exclusively in the name of
Alaimo Chiropractic.” We fail to see how this language is
ambiguous. We see no meaningful distinction between this text and
that in the assignment the Supreme Court upheld in
Charlotte
Mecklenberg, as the text here clearly assigns the benefits from Mr.
MacEwan's personal injury claim to Alaimo.
Moreover, there is no evidence that Allstate was misled or
confused by the document. In fact, Allstate implicitly
acknowledged the existence and validity of the assignment when Ms.
Ritter indicated to Alaimo that she had erroneously sent $400 toMr. MacEwan rather than to Alaimo. As she indicated in her letter
to Alaimo, “I did err in sending the full settlement to Mr. MacEwan
rather than sending $400 to you. At this time I am willing to pay
you that $400, with the understanding that you will pursue Mr.
MacEwan for any remaining balance owed.” Allstate's recognition of
the assignment further persuades us that the assignment is
unambiguous and that we can give it its plain meaning.
Allstate also argues that the assignment is invalid because,
rather than assigning to Alaimo the proceeds of the claim, it
assigns the claim itself. In North Carolina, a patient cannot
assign his claim to another, but he can assign the proceeds of that
claim.
Charlotte Mecklenburg, 340 N.C. at 91, 455 S.E.2d at 657.
As that Court explained:
There is a distinction between the assignment of a claim for
personal injury and the assignment of the proceeds of such a
claim. The assignment of a claim gives the assignee control
of the claim and promotes champerty. Such a contract is
against public policy and void. The assignment of the
proceeds of a claim does not give the assignee control of the
case and there is no reason it should not be valid.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Here, however, Mr. MacEwan did not assign to Alaimo his
personal injury claim against Allstate. To the contrary, he
assigned the proceeds of that claim, which, as we indicated above,
is permitted. Pursuant to the assignment, Alaimo is entitled to
receive “
proceeds from any settlement, judgment, or verdict, as
well as any
proceeds relating to commercial health or group
insurance, attorney retainer agreements, medical payments benefits,
personal injury protection, no-fault coverage, uninsured andunderinsured motorist coverage, third party liability
distributions, disability benefits, and any other benefits or
proceeds payable to me for the purposes stated herein” (emphasis
added). This language clearly assigns to Alaimo the proceeds from
Mr. MacEwan's claim against Allstate. We see no evidence that
Alaimo also has received the right to litigate or otherwise control
Mr. MacEwan's claim in general.
Finally, Allstate argues that the assignment is not valid and
enforceable under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 44-49 and 44-50. In our view,
those provisions, which deal with liens recovered as damages in
personal injury actions, do not apply here. The dispute is over
the validity of the assignment of the proceeds of Mr. MacEwan's
claim. The language in the assignment providing for a lien is not
at issue here.
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the decision of the
district court.
Affirmed.
Judges McGEE and THOMAS concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***