ASAP RESTORATION AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. A/A/O SUZANNE CASEY, APPELLANT,
v.
TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE CO., APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2015-05-20
No. 4D13-4174
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.
165 So. 3d 736 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2015)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in finding that the anti-assignment clause and loss payment provision precluded the assignment of the insurance claim.


Facts & Procedural History

ASAP Restoration and Construction, as assignee of a homeowners' insurance policyholder, sued Tower Hill Signature Insurance for breach of contract aft…

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.


Opinion of the Court
TAYLOR, J.

TAYLOR, J.

ASAP Restoration and Construction appeals a final order dismissing a complaint that it filed, as an assignee of an insured on a homeowners’ policy, against Tower Hill Signature Insurance for breach of contract. Because the trial court erred in finding that the anti-assignment clause and the loss payment provision precluded the assignment, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., No. 4D14-424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

We emphasize, however, that we decline to reach any of the insurer’s other challenges to the assignment, including whether the assignment violates the public adjuster statute or the- statute governing insurable interests,1 or whether the language of the assignment was so broad that it constituted an assignment of the entire policy in violation of,the anti-assignment clause.2 The trial court should address these issues in the first instance. See Stark v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So.3d 285, 289 n. 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (declining to apply the tipsy coachman doctrine and explaining that an appellate court should not ordinarily decide issues not ruled on by the trial court in thé first instance).

Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw