RESTORATION 1 CFL, LLC A/A/O ALEX TCHEKMEIAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ASI PREFERRED INSURANCE CORPORATION, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of breach of contract action, holding that an insurance policy clause requiring mortgagee consent to assignment of post-loss claim benefits violates Florida law and is unenforceable.
An insurance policy provision requiring mortgagee consent to assignment of post-loss claim benefits is invalid under Florida law.
[1] An insurance policy clause requiring mortgagee consent to assignment of post-loss claim benefits is unenforceable under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No assignment of claim benefits, regardless of whether made before loss or after loss, shall be valid without the written consent of all 'insureds', all additional insureds and all mortgagee(s) named in this policy.”
The insurance policy provision at issue that the court found invalid.
After suffering a covered loss under a homeowner's insurance policy, the insured assigned his claim benefits to Appellant in exchange for emergency wa…
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 Insurance Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
Restoration 1 CFL, LLC ("Appellant"), a/a/o Alex Tchekmeian ("the insured"), appeals the trial court's dismissal of its breach of contract action against the insured's homeowner's insurance provider, ASI Preferred Insurance Corp. ("ASI"). After suffering a covered loss, the insured assigned his claim benefits to Appellant in exchange for its provision of emergency water cleanup services. Wells Fargo, the insured's mortgagee, did not consent to the assignment. Appellant then filed suit against ASI for unpaid or underpaid invoices, asserting standing pursuant to the assignment. ASI moved to dismiss, arguing the following provision in its insurance policy rendered the assignment invalid: "No assignment of claim benefits, regardless of whether made before loss or after loss, shall be valid without the written consent of all 'insureds', all additional insureds and all mortgagee(s) named in this policy." The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, stating, "[I]t is not unlawful to require the mortgagee's consent to an assignment of benefits."
We recently affirmed the Office of Insurance Regulation's disapproval of identical anti-assignment language in an insurance policy. Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Fla. Office of Ins. Regulation, 232 So.3d 1157, ----, 2017 WL 5907449 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 1, 2017). Because here, as in that case, the clause improperly restricts the assignment of post-loss claim benefits, contrary *748to Florida law, we reverse the dismissal of Appellant's action and remand for further proceedings. See id.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Restoration 1 OF Port ST. Lucie v. Ark Royal Ins. Co., 255 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Fla. Off. of Ins. Reg., 232 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)