RESTORATION
v.
ASI PREFERRED
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.
An insurance policy provision requiring mortgagee consent to assignment of post-loss claim benefits is invalid and unenforceable under Florida law.
[1] An insurance policy provision conditioning the validity of assignment of post-loss claim benefits upon the consent of mortgagees named in the policy is invalid and unenfo…
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 Anti-Assignment Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RESTORATION 1 CFL, LLC A/A/O ALEX TCHEKMEIAN, Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-755 ASI PREFERRED INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 9, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Bob LeBlanc, Judge.
Jordan Mejeur, of Cohen Grossman, Maitland; and Gray R. Proctor, of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Kenneth B. Bell, Lauren V. Purdy, of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Tallahassee; Anthony Russo and Thomas A. Keller, of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP, Tampa, Appellee.
WALLIS, J.
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, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2543, D2543 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 1, 2017). Because here,
as in that case, the clause improperly restricts the assignment of post-loss claim benefits,
contrary to 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 v. ASI Preferred, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Restoration v. ASI Preferred, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)