21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 174b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2102HILLInsurance — Homeowners — Standing — Assignment — Company that provided water removal services on homeowner’s property has standing to bring action against insurer for unpaid balance of claim based on post-loss assignment of benefits
ANDERSON RESTORATION & EMERGENCY SERVICES, LLC A/A/O MYRNA HILL, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 13-CC-2940, Division P. September 23, 2013. Angela M. Cox, Judge. Counsel: Julie E. Bauman, Law Office of Guy H. Gilbert, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Jaclyn Bentley, Aaron Behar, P.A., Weston, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS MATTER came before the Court for hearing on August 14, 2013 for Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
The Plaintiff’s claim is brought under an assignment of insurance benefits for water removal services provided to the Defendant’s insured, Myrna Hill. The Plaintiff submitted a bill to Defendant for payment. The Plaintiff alleges it was underpaid by the Defendant. This is an action for Defendant’s failure to pay full value for services rendered.
In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant alleges that their insured, Myrna Hill, may not assign the benefits, duties, and obligations under her homeowner’s policy and that any purported assignment is contrary to Florida law and public policy. The Defendant agrees that Florida law provides that the right to receive the payment of proceeds due under a home owner’s policy is assignable after a loss has occurred. See Lexington Ins. Co. v. Simkins Industries Inc., 704 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly S41a].
It is the Plaintiff’s position that at the moment of loss and the claim is filed, the insured can assign. The Plaintiff emphasizes that the entire policy is not being assigned just this claim, therefore, there is no unlimited risk to the Insurance Company and the Plaintiff has proper standing to bring this claim.
The Court has considered all pleadings filed, argument of the parties, supplemental authority provided and being otherwise advised in the premises, hereby finds:
That the policy of allowing a post loss claim by an assignee even where an anti-assignment provision exists in the insurance policy is good public policy. If Hill had to wait for a claims adjuster from the insurance company to arrive before beginning water extraction after a loss, additional damage from the water event could occur. Additionally, the same would be true if the insured did not have the funds immediately available to pay for water extraction and water extraction companies were not able to rely on assignment of benefits to be assured payment.
The assignment of benefits by Hill to the Plaintiff occurred post loss, therefore it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.
2. The Defense will respond to discovery within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order.
* * *
