HUGHES
v.
ACE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the assignor of insurance benefits lacks standing to sue after a valid assignment, but the assignee retains standing.
Plaintiffs William and Judith Hughes and their assignee, Elevate Exteriors, Inc., sued Ace Insurance Company for damages from Hurricane Irma. Ace move…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facial Attack On Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is Defendant Ace Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23). Plaintiffs William Hughes, Judith Hughes, and Elevate Exteriors, Inc. never responded. The Court grants the Motion in part. This is a Hurricane Irma case. The storm damaged the Hughes’ home, and they seek insurance proceeds from Ace. Before filing this case, however, the Hughes assigned their benefits under the insurance policy to Elevate (a local roofer). Now, Ace seeks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and standing.
1235, 1238 (M.D. Fla. 2019). These challenges take two forms—facial and factual. Id. at 1239. On facial attacks (like this one) “the Court takes the allegations in the complaint as true.” Id. The operative pleading is the Amended Complaint (Doc. 24). And an attached contract is part of that pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). First, Ace attacks the jurisdictional allegations. The Hughes and Elevate’s citizenship are unchallenged (and proper). So Ace contends the allegations on its own citizenship fails. But the Court disagrees. The
Complaint mentions Ace does business in Florida. Yet this does not destroy diversity like Ace worries. The place where a company conducts business doesn’t establish its citizenship. What could be a defect is failing to plead Ace’s principal place of business. When it removed, however, Ace established its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1-6). Because there is no doubt the parties are diverse, the Motion is denied on this basis. See (Doc. 22 at 1 (noting the allegations now “demonstrate complete diversity”)). Second, Ace seeks to dismiss for lack of standing. After a valid,
unconditional assignment of insurance benefits, the assignor loses standing to sue based on the rights assigned. Napoli, Inc. v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins., No. 5:18-cv-101-Oc-30PRL, 2019 WL 5212615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2019) (Plaintiff “admits the assignment of benefits is valid—which means it lacks standing.”).2 Here, the Hughes assigned their rights to Elevate.
Attached to the Amended Complaint is a contract assigning insurance benefits to Elevate: Owner [(the Hughes)] irrevocably assigns all insurance rights, benefits, claims, proceeds, and causes of action, including supplemental claims (together, “Claim”) to Elevate Exteriors, Inc. (Doc. 24-1 at 2). This assignment clearly and unequivocally conveys all policy rights and benefits (including the right to bring this suit) to Elevate. Apparently, the Hughes agree as they didn’t respond. So Elevate is the party with standing. See Oglesby, 781 So. 2d at 470 (“And the one that owns the claim must bring the action if an action is to be brought.”). Because the Hughes lack standing, their claim must be dismissed. And only Elevate can proceed with this case. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) is GRANTED in part.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rosondala Oglesby v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 781 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)