26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 628a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2608LANGInsurance — Homeowners — Assignment — Insurer did not have standing to challenge consideration with respect to assignment between plaintiff and insureds — Genuine issue of fact exists as to whether wife acquiesced to assignment of benefits signed by husband

NOLAND’S ROOFING INC. a/a/o George Langeway, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court, 5th Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County. Case No. 2015-CA-002043. October 1, 2018. Heidi Davis, Judge. Counsel: Katie S. Monroe, Hale, Hale & Jacobson, PA, Orlando, for Plaintiff. David S. Harrigan and Christopher J. Wyszynski, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Orlando, for Defendant.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came on for consideration on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law filed on February 7, 2018. The Court has considered the Motion and applicable responses, the relevant statutory authority and case law, and has been otherwise fully advised.A. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a two-count complaint on an alleged breach of contract claim.

On February 7, 2018, Defendant filed the Motion which is the subject matter of this Order. Defendant bases its Motion on two issues — (1) the assignment of benefits is invalid because it was only signed by Mr. Langeway and inappropriately attempted to divest the insured’s constitutionally protected homestead property rights, and (2) the assignment fails as there is no consideration. Based on the two above arguments, Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain the cause of action.

On August 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

On August 28, 2018, this Court held a hearing on the Motion and Response. This Order is a rendition of this Court’s ruling.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Court finds there is an issue of fact as to whether Mrs. Langeway acquiesced to the Assignment of Benefits.

2. The Court also finds that Defendant does not have standing to challenge the consideration (or lack thereof) with respect to the Assignment of Benefits between Plaintiff and the insured(s).

3. Based on the above, Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is DENIED.