existence of the hospital lien, GEICO would have issued the check to the Bells as payees, as they demanded. The Bells’ position is without merit for several reasons. First and foremost, as the district court held, GEICO’s payment of loss did not amount to bad faith since the “express terms and conditions of the [Bells’] policy” allowed for payment to the hospital, a person entitled by law to receive payment. See Talat, 758 So.2d at 1282. Thus, we conclude that the district court correctly reasoned that GEICO’s error and delay in routing $5,000.00 from the Bells’ PIP claim to the hospital did not change the fact that GEICO was contractually entitled to render payment to the hospital so long as the hospital held its valid lien. See Dade Cnty. v. Pavon, 266 So.2d 94, 96 (Fla.Ct.App.1972) (<HOLDING>). Second, we conclude that while GEICO’s error
holding that under nebraskas physicians lien statute a physicians lien could not exceed the amount the health care provider agreed to accept for the services rendered to a patient even if the usual and customary charge for such services is greater than that sum because the statute extends such lien only to the amount due or debt of the patient to the hospital holding that because the contract between the hospital and the health insurance company had a hold harmless provision which stated the hospital would not bill or hold insurance subscribers liable for any hospital expenses covered by the subscribers insurance contract and all expenses from the patients treatment for the automobile accident were covered in such contract there was no debt upon which the hospital could assert a lien pursuant to the states hospital lien statute holding that where hospital used balance billing its lien was unenforceable because the hospital had been paid in full for the services it provided to patient and there was consequently no debt to secure by the existence of the lien holding courts have held that hospitals have a duty to protect its patients from the tortious or criminal actions of third parties due to the special relationship between the hospital and the patient holding that upon admission to a hospital the hospitals lien attached to the proceeds of all insurance claims accruing to the patient or his legal representative as a result of the patients hospitalization