Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

April 29, 2016 by admin

Insurance — Assignment of benefits — Assignment of insurance benefits transferred to assignee standing to litigate coverage issue raised by insurer when it denied claim

41
Fla. L. Weekly D998c
Top of Form

Insurance
— Assignment of benefits — Where assignment of benefits from insured to
plaintiff was clear and unambiguous, it was error to allow introduction of
extrinsic evidence to determine meaning of agreement — Assignment of insurance
benefits transferred to assignee standing to litigate coverage issue raised by
insurer when it denied claim

RESTORATION 1 CFL A/A/O I. JOY WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE
FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D15-1049.
Opinion filed April 22, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County,
Janet C. Thorpe, Judge. Counsel: Susan W. Fox and Gray R. Proctor, of Fox &
Loquasto, P.A., Orlando, and T. Paul Zeniewicz, of Cohen Battisti Grossman,
Winter Park, for Appellant. Scot E. Samis, of Traub, Lieberman, Straus &
Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) Restoration 1 CFL (“Restoration”), a/a/o I.
Joy White (“White”), appeals the trial court’s order granting final summary
judgment on behalf of State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”).
State Farm contends that the assignment of benefits from White to Restoration
transferred the right to collect benefits but not the right to participate in a
suit to determine coverage under the policy regarding those benefits. The trial
court determined that the assignment was not valid because White intended to
retain control of her rights, basing its conclusion largely upon statements
made by White during a deposition. For the following reasons, we reverse.

First, we conclude that the assignment of benefits from
White to Restoration is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it was error to allow
introduction of extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of the agreement. See,
e.g., King v. Bray,
867 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“[T]he party
seeking to introduce parol evidence must establish that the document is
ambiguous and in need of interpretation.”). Accordingly, White’s deposition
testimony regarding her interpretation of the assignment should not have been
considered by the trial court.

We further conclude that the assignment of insurance
benefits transferred to the assignee, Restoration, standing to litigate the
coverage issue raised by State Farm when it denied the claim. See Bioscience
W., Inc. v. Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
185 So. 3d 638, 641 (Fla.
2d DCA 2016); United Water Restoration Grp., Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.,
173 So. 3d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Because Restoration had standing to
participate in the suit to determine coverage under the policy for the benefits
assigned, it was error for the trial court to grant State Farm’s motion for
summary judgment. We therefore reverse and remand this case for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED
and REMANDED. (SAWAYA, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982