23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 162b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2302KERRInsurance — Homeowners — Standing — Assignment — No merit to argument that animal removal company does not have standing to bring suit against homeowners’ insurer based on assignment executed by husband of named insured where policy defines insured to include spouse
THE SWANSON GROUP, LLC d/b/a ALLSTAR ANIMAL REMOVAL, a/a/o William Kerr, Plaintiff, vs. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 15-30400-COCI (82). June 9, 2015. Honorable Angela A. Dempsey, Judge. Counsel: Jordan T. Mejeur, Cohen Battisti & Grossman, Attorney at Law, Winter Park, for Plaintiff. W. Ashby Underhill, Hassell-Legal, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE, having come before this Honorable Court on June 1, 2015, on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and after reviewing the relevant filings, authority, and hearing arguments of counsel, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
Analyzing the instant case within the four corners of the Complaint and incorporated attachments, the Plaintiff, Allstar Animal Removal (“Allstar”), has standing to sue the Defendant, Security First Insurance Company (“Security First”). The parties do not dispute that the document attached to Allstar’s complaint is a copy of an assignment executed by William Kerr, who is the husband of Carland Kerr.1 The assignment states in relevant part:
I/we, the undersigned customer(s), hereby assign any and all rights and benefits under any homeowners, liability, casualty, and/or other insurance policies to Allstar for restoration services and supplies rendered, for the undersigned customer. . . [t]his assignment includes, but is not limited to, initiating legal suit to enforce such payments.
Security First argues that Allstar’s Complaint should be dismissed because William Kerr was not listed as the owner of the subject insured property when he executed the assignment, and therefore had no insurance rights and benefits to assign. However, the plain language within the “Definitions” provision of the policy clearly defines “insured” to include a spouse. See also Indus. Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Jones, 363 So. 2d 1168, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (holding that actually naming the insured spouse in the policy is not practical).
For the reasons stated in One Call Property Services Inc. a/a/o William Hughes v. Security First Insurance Company,, Case No. 4D14-424 (Fla. 4th DCA May 20, 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D1196a], Accident Cleaners, Inc. v. Universal Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1609973 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 10, 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D862a], and the plain language of the policy, Allstar has obtained a valid assignment and has standing to maintain its breach of contract lawsuit against Security First.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
__________________
1Carland Kerr is the purchaser of the subject insurance policy, and the listed owner of the subject insured property.
