Gray v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co., 2705

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: HEARN
• Citation: 327 S.C. 646,491 S.E.2d 272
• Parties: Dr. William GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE FARM AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. William GRAY, D.C., and Robin Ivey, D.C., Appellants, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Penny Miller, and Perry Carson, of which Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. is, Respondent. . Heard
• Docket Number: No. 2705,2705
• Decision Date: 07 May 1997

Page 272

491 S.E.2d 272 327 S.C. 646 Dr. William GRAY, Appellant,
v.
STATE FARM AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
William GRAY, D.C., and Robin Ivey, D.C., Appellants,
v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Penny Miller, and Perry
Carson, of which Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
is, Respondent. No. 2705. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard May 7, 1997.
Decided July 28, 1997.

Page 273

[327 S.C. 647] D. Michael Kelly and John S. Nichols, both of Suggs & Kelly, Columbia, for appellants.

John U. Bell, III, and C. Mitchell Brown, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, for State Farm Auto Insurance Company.

Robert C. Brown and Donna Seegars Givens, both of Brown & Woods, for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Columbia, for respondents.

[327 S.C. 648] HEARN, Judge.

In these consolidated appeals, chiropractors William Gray and Robin Ivey appeal from the trial judge's grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm Auto Insurance Company and his dismissal of their causes of action against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRP. We affirm.

FACTS

The facts are undisputed. ¹ Appellants obtained written agreements from several of their patients purporting to assign insurance benefits to them as payment for services rendered. Appellants' patients had previously been involved in automobile accidents with third parties insured by State Farm and Nationwide.

Captioned "Assignment, Lien and Authorization," the agreements provided in part:

I hereby authorize and direct you, my insurance company and/or my attorney to pay directly to [the office of my chiropractor] such sums as may be due and owing this office for services rendered me ... and to withhold such sums from ... health and accident benefits, or any other insurance benefits obligated to reimburse me or from any settlement, judgment or verdict on my behalf as may be necessary to adequately protect said Office....

(Emphasis added).

Once Appellants obtained these documents, they forwarded them to State Farm and Nationwide. When State Farm and Nationwide settled the claims of Appellants' patients against their insureds, they forwarded settlement proceeds directly to the patients. Appellants initiated these lawsuits against State Farm and Nationwide alleging causes of action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel when they could not collect payment from their patients.

[327 S.C. 649] In response to Appellants' claims, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment and Nationwide filed a motion to dismiss. By order dated October 5, 1995, the trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. On December 18, 1995, he dismissed Appellants' causes of action against Nationwide pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),

Page 274

SCRCP. Appellants appeal from both rulings. DISCUSSION

The central issue in both appeals is whether the documents received by Appellants from their patients created a duty on the part of third-party insurance carriers to pay third-party benefits directly to them. We hold they did not.

A. State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate where evidence is susceptible of only one reasonable interpretation and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, all evidence and inferences drawn therefrom must be viewed in favor of the party opposing the motion. Cafe...