23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 249b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2303BRECInsurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Water damage — Post-loss assignee had standing to file suit against insurer for payment for work performed on insured property — Indispensable parties — Because plaintiff is the only party with an interest in insurance proceeds for the services plaintiff performed, matter can be fully adjudicated without joinder of any other parties — Motion to dismiss for lack of standing or for failure to join indispensable party is denied
AIR QUALITY ASSESSORS OF FLORIDA a/a/o EDWARD D. BRECKNER, Plaintiff, v. CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 16-2014-SC-005816. May 14, 2015. Emmet F. Ferguson, Judge. Counsel: Winston Taitt, Trujillo Vargas Ortiz Gonzalez, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Lani Gonzalez, Molhem & Fraley, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S AMENDEDMOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLANT
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on April 28, 2015, on Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise advised, finds as follows:
On November 13, 2014 Plaintiff filed a one count Complaint for breach of contract. The Complaint alleges in relevant part: (a) On or about June 13, 2014, Edward Breckner’s property sustained damage caused by a water loss covered by Mr. Breckner’s homeowner’s insurance policy; (b) On June 18, 2014, Mr. Breckner assigned insurance benefits under his homeowner insurance policy to the Plaintiff; (c) The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an itemized invoice for their services and the Defendant has refused to pay the outstanding bill. (See Plaintiff’s Complaint)
Defendant seeks an order dismissing the Plaintiff’s Complaint based on two grounds: Plaintiff’s lack of standing to file suit and Plaintiff’s failure to join indispensable parties. Plaintiff opposes an order of dismissal arguing: (1) That their status as an assignee to post-loss insurance benefits conveys a long recognized right to sue for breach of contract, and (2) As plaintiff-assignee they are the only party with an interest in the insurance proceeds for the services they performed and this instant matter can be fully adjudicated without the joinder of any other parties.
The court must assume that all of the facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the pleader. Shahid v. Campbell, 552 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The court may not go beyond the four corners of the complaint in testing the legal sufficiency of the allegations. Fish v. Post of Amvets No. 85, 560 So.2d 337, 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Crews v. Ellis, 531 So.2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
The right to sue for a breach of contract to enforce assigned rights was recognized early in Florida history. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinnacle Med., Inc., 753 So. 2d 55, 57 (Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S72a] (“The right of an assignee to sue for breach of contract to enforce assigned rights predates the Florida Constitution.” (citing Robinson v. Nix, 22 Fla. 321 (1886)). Furthermore, the Court is not compelled by Defendant’s argument that Florida Statues 626.854 abrogates the Plaintiffs long recognized right to sue. Nothing within the four corners of the Complaint indicates Plaintiff was acting as a public adjuster in violation of Florida Law. The allegations simply indicate Plaintiff permissibly received the assignment of benefits to receive payment and is acting solely for its own benefit.
An indispensable party is one whose presence in the suit is so essential that no final decision can be rendered without their joinder. Hertz Corporation v. Piccolo, 453 So.2d 12, 14 (Fla. 1984). Because the Plaintiff alleges they are entitled to insurance benefits for the services they performed neither the insured nor any other contractors could “own” the benefits for services rendered by the Plaintiff. Only the insured or the service provider “owns” the cause of action against the insurer at any one time. And the one that owns the claim must bring the action if an action is to be brought. Garcia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 766 So.2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2050c]; Livingston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D533c].
It is therefore OREDRED and ADJUDGED: Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is DENIED.
