SWIFT RESPONSE RESTORATION, INC., ETC.
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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 assignment agreement that does not comply with the indemnity and hold harmless requirements of section 627.7152(2)(a)8, Florida Statutes, is invalid and unenforceable.
[1] An assignment agreement under Florida law must contain a provision requiring the assignee to indemnify and hold harmless the assignor from all liabilities, damages, losse…
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“An assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable.”
Section 627.7152(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2023)
Swift Response Restoration, Inc. entered into an assignment agreement with Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The assignment agreement did not c…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 18, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-1343
Lower Tribunal No. 23-7137-CC-26
Swift Response Restoration, Inc., etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Christopher Green, Judge.
Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi (Tampa), for appellant.
Rothell Law Group, P.A., and Kristi Bergemann Rothell (Greenacres), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Doe v. Baptist Primary Care, Inc., 177 So. 3d 669, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“An appellant who presents no argument as to why a trial court's ruling is incorrect on an issue has abandoned the issue." (quoting Davis v. State, 153 So. 3d 399, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)); Aleman v. Gervas, 314 So. 3d 350, 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“To ascertain the intention of the parties to a contact, the trial court must examine the whole instrument, not just particular portions . . . ." (quoting Bucacci v. Boutin, 933 So. 2d 580, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006))); § 627.7152(2)(a)8., Fla. Stat. (2023) (requiring that the assignment agreements “[c]ontain a provision requiring the assignee to indemnify and hold harmless the assignor from all liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, attorney fees"); § 627.7152(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“An assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable.”); Total Care Restoration, LLC, v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 357 So. 3d 1260, 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (requiring strict compliance with requirements of section 627.7152, appellate court found that the statute was unambiguous; thus, an assignment agreement that did not comply with the statute was invalid and unenforceable); Indoor Env't Restoration Now, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 388 So. 3d 977, 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (holding that the assignment
agreement was valid and unenforceable for not complying with the indemnity and hold harmless requirement of the statute).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DOE v. Baptist Primary Care, Inc., 177 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Bucacci v. Boutin, 933 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Davis v. State, 153 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Total Care Restoration, LLC v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 357 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Aleman v. Gervas, 314 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Projekt Prop. Restoration, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 388 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)