RESTORATION 1 CFL A/A/O I. JOY WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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 an assignment of insurance benefits is clear and unambiguous, granting the assignee standing to litigate coverage issues.
Restoration 1 CFL, an assignee of insurance benefits from White, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for State Farm. The trial court …
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 Assignment Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
Restoration 1 CFL (“Restoration”), a/a/o I. Joy White (“White”), appeals the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment on behalf of State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”). State Farm contends that the assignment of benefits from White to Restoration transferred the right to collect benefits but not the right to participate in a suit to determine coverage under the policy regarding those benefits. The trial court determined that the assignment was not valid because White intended to retain control of her rights, basing its conclusion largely upon statements made by White during a deposition. For the following reasons, we reverse.
First, we conclude that the assignment of benefits from White to Restoration is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it was error to allow introduction of extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of the agreement. See, e.g., King v. Bray, 867 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“[T]he party seeking to introduce parol evidence must establish that the document is ambiguous and in need of interpretation.”). Accordingly, White’s deposition testimony regarding her interpretation of the assignment should not have been considered by the trial court.
We further conclude that the assignment of insurance benefits transferred to the assignee, Restoration, standing to litigate the coverage issue raised by State Farm when it denied the claim. See Bioscience W., Inc. v. Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 185 So.3d 638, 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); United Water Restoration Grp., Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 173 So.3d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Because Restoration had standing to participate in the suit to determine coverage under the policy for the benefits assigned, it was error for the trial court to grant State Farm’s motion for summary judgment. We therefore reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salyer v. Tower Hill Select Ins. Co. & Mason Dixon Contracting, Inc., 367 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…th contract law. See, e.g., Sidiq v. Tower Hill Select Ins. Co., 276 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Nicon Constr., Inc. v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 249 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Restoration 1 CFL v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 189 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). An assignment of benefits can be tailored to the work that a contractor performs. See, e.g., Brown v. Omega Ins. Co., 322 So. 3d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Sidiq, 276 So. 3d 822; Nicon, 249 So. 3d 681. For example, in Sidiq, t…
-
Ortho v. State Farm (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2016)…right . . . to sue for breach of contract to enforce assigned rights predates the Florida Constitution.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinnacle Med., Inc., 753 So. 2d 55, 57 (Fla. 2000). In Restoration 1 CFL v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 189 So. 3d 340, 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), the Fifth District rejected the insurer’s argument that an assignment of benefits “transferred the right to collect benefits but not the right to participate in a suit to determine coverage under the policy regarding those…
Authorities Cited
- King v. Bray, 867 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Bioscience W., Inc. v. Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 185 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- United Water Restoration Grp., Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 173 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)