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

October 30, 2015 by admin

Insurance — Property — Standing — Assignment — Assignment of post-loss property insurance benefits without insurer’s consent was valid despite presence of non-assignment clause

Online
Reference: FLWSUPP 2304KIDW

Insurance — Property — Standing — Assignment — Assignment of
post-loss property insurance benefits without insurer’s consent was valid
despite presence of non-assignment clause

THE KIDWELL GROUP, LLC d/b/a AIR QUALITY ASSESSORS OF FLORIDA, as
assignee of NANCY HEROUX, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION, Defendant. County Court, 2nd Judicial Circuit in and for Leon
County. Case No. 2015-SC-366. August 5, 2015. Honorable Robert Wheeler, Judge.
Counsel: Daniel Gutierrez and Patrick Zurita, Daniel Gutierrez, P.A., Orlando,
for Plaintiff. Bradley Little, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Jacksonville,
for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
 
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AS TO
DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
This matter having come before the Court on July 27, 2015 upon Defendant’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary
Judgment on Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses, and having heard the argument of
counsel and being duly advised in the premise, it is hereby ORDERED and
ADJUDGED:
1. On September 11, 2014, the Insured, Nancy Heroux, suffered a water loss
at her property. Defendant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, issued a
policy of insurance to the Insured that provided coverage for the property.
2. Plaintiff, Air Quality Assessors of Florida, performed moisture
evaluations and testing at the property related to the covered loss. In
consideration for the services rendered, the Insured executed a post-loss
assignment of benefits in favor of Air Quality Assessors of Florida.
3. Defendant failed to acknowledge the assignment of benefits at issue and
failed to reimburse Plaintiff for the services rendered.
4. On or about February 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action to recover
the payment for the unpaid benefits at issue.
5. On March 23, 2015, Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses,
stating “Citizens’ insurance policy complies with Florida statutes and contains
an assignment condition that requires all assignment agreements to be approved
by Citizens in writing before the assignment can be valid.”
6. Additionally, Defendant asserted two Affirmative Defenses. The first
stating, “The assignment by the Insured to Plaintiff was not approved by
Citizens. Absent Citizen’s consent, the assignment is not valid or enforceable
against Citizens.” The second Affirmative Defense stated, “Because there has
been no valid assignment, Plaintiff lacks standing and cannot pursue this or
any claim for breach of the policy.”
7. The policy at issue states in relevant part:
“Assignment of
this policy will not be valid unless we give our written consent.”
8. On May 12, 2015, Defendant filed its Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, requesting the Court to determine the assignment of benefits at issue
was unambiguous as a matter of law, and that the assignment assigned the entire
insurance contract to the Plaintiff.
9. On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Affirmative Defenses, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment on
Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses. Plaintiff’s Motion stated that the assignment
of benefits created a valid assignment of post-loss insurance benefits and did
not constitute an assignment of the entire policy.
10. “Under Florida law, an insured may assign his right to benefits under
a contract of insurance.” Schuster v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., 843
So. 2d 909, 911-912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D505a]. “Post-loss
insurance claims are freely assignable without the consent of the insurer.” Citizens
Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ifergane,
114 So. 3d 190, 195 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2012) [37
Fla. L. Weekly D2205a]. This is true despite the presence of an anti-assignment
clause. See Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Ryan Inc. Eastern, 974 So. 2d 368, 377
n.7 (Fla. 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly S59a] (finding “ ‘it is a well-settled rule
that [anti-assignment provisions do] not apply to an assignment after loss.’
”).
11. The validity of post-loss assignment of benefits has been reaffirmed
by a majority of Florida’s District Courts of Appeal. See Accident Cleaners,
Inc. v. Universal Ins. Co.,
No. 5D14-352 Fla. App. LEXIS 5199 (Fla. 5th DCA
April 10, 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D862a]; One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec.
First Ins. Co.,
165 So. 3d 749 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (4th DCA May 20,
2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D1196a]; United Water Restoration Group, Inc.,
a/a/o Oran Walker v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company,
No. 1D14-3797,
2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10403 (1st DCA July 8, 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D1569a].
12. As stated in One Call Prop. Servs.,
“Even when an
insurance policy contains a provision barring assignment of the policy, an
insured may assign a post-loss claim. See W. Fla. Grocery Co. v. Teutonia
Fire Ins. Co.,
74 Fla. 220, 224, 77 So. 209, 210-11 (1917) (“The policy was
assigned after loss, and it is a well-settled rule that the provision in a
policy relative to the consent of the insurer to the transfer of an interest
therein does not apply to an assignment after loss.”); Lexington Ins. Co. v.
Simkins Indus., Inc.,
704 So. 2d 1384, 1386 n.3 (Fla. 1998) [23 Fla. L.
Weekly S41a] (“[The insurer] concedes that an insured may assign insurance
proceeds to a third party after a loss, even without the consent of the insurer.”);
Accident Cleaners, Inc. v. Universal Ins. Co., 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS
5199, 2015 WL 1609973, *2 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 10, 2015) (“[The insurer’s]
argument ignores that the right to recover is freely assignable after loss and
that an assignee has a common-law right to sue on a breach of contract claim.
Dating back to 1917, the Florida Supreme Court recognized that provisions in
insurance contracts requiring consent to assignment of the policy do not apply
to assignment after loss.”); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ifergane, 114
So. 3d 190, 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D2205a] (“Post-loss
insurance claims are freely assignable without the consent of the insurer.”); Better
Constr., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
651 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA
1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly D420a] (“[A] provision against assignment of an
insurance policy does not bar an insured’s assignment of an after-loss
claim.”); Gisela Invs., N.V. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 1056,
1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (“A provision in a policy of insurance which prohibits
assignment thereof except with consent of the insurer does not apply to prevent
assignment of the claim or interest in the insurance money then due, after
loss.”); see also NextGen Restor., Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 126
So. 3d 1255, 1256-57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2386a] (stating in
dicta: “[The anti-assignment clause] does not appear to prevent an assignment
of benefits or proceeds owing by virtue of a claim arising under the policy. We
do not reach the validity of this specific assignment of insurance benefits,
but we note that other cases seem to permit assignees to bring similar
actions.”). One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 165 So. 3d 749
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D1196a]
13. In the case at hand, Defendant’s consent was not required for the
Insured to make an assignment of post-loss benefits.
14. Plaintiff’s assignment does not assign the entire insurance contract
to Plaintiff.
15. Plaintiff has standing to bring this action by virtue of a valid
assignment of post-loss benefits.
16. For these reasons,
Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s First Affirmative Defense is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s Second Affirmative
Defense is GRANTED.

* * *

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