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
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • 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

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

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. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982