Case Search

Please select a category.

DRY TIME RENTALS, a/a/o Rene and Erika Angulo, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP., Defendant.

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 746a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2508ANGUInsurance — Homeowners — Post-loss assignment — Policy provision barring post-loss assignment of insurance benefits without consent of insured’s mortgage lender imposes restriction on policyholder’s right to assign post-loss benefits in contravention of controlling case law — Insurer’s motion to dismiss denied

DRY TIME RENTALS, a/a/o Rene and Erika Angulo, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP., Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2016-CC-007353-O. October 4, 2017. Faye L. Allen Judge. Counsel: Imran Maliik, for Plaintiff. Thomas Keller, for Defendant.

PROPOSED ORDER ONDEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE came before this Honorable Court on July 7, 2017 for hearing on Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, and this Honorable Court having reviewed the Motion, Response, and the court file; heard oral arguments; and being sufficiently advised in the premises of the dispute, this Honorable Court hereby

FINDS, ORDERS, AND ADJUDGES:

The law is clear that Florida has long favored the free assignability of post-loss insurance benefits: “Even when an insurance policy contains a provision barring assignment of the policy, an insured may assign a post-loss claim.” One Call Prop. Services Inc. v. Sec. First Ins. Co.165 So. 3d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D1196a]. Additionally, “post-loss insurance claims are freely assignable without the consent of the insurer.” Bioscience W. Inc. v. Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.185 So. 3d 638, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) [41 Fla. L. Weekly D349a] (citing Sec. First Ins. Co. v. State, Office of Ins. Regulation, 177 So. 3d 627, 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D2406a]. Defendant’s policy provision requiring the consent of the insured’s mortgage lender imposes a restriction on the policy holder’s right to assign his/her post-loss insurance benefits in contravention to the above-cited case law.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s To Dismiss is DENIED.

Skip to content