THE KIDWELL GROUP, LLC, D/B/A AIR QUALITY ASSESSORS OF FLORIDA, ETC.

v.

SOUTHERN OAK INSURANCE COMPANY

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May⁷, 2025.

________________

No. 3D24-0217 Lower Tribunal No. 23-49872 SP ________________

The Kidwell Group, LLC, d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida, etc. Appellant,

vs.

Southern Oak Insurance Company, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha Darrough, Judge.

Chad Barr Law, and Chad A. Barr (Altamonte Springs), for appellant.

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Thomas A. Valdez (Tampa), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.

EMAS, J.

2

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

Plaintiff below, The Kidwell Group, LLC (as assignee of the insureds, Diane and George Sariego) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice its complaint against the defendant below, Southern Oak Insurance Company, for breach of an insurance policy. In dismissing the complaint, the trial court concluded that plaintiff’s assignment agreement¹ was invalid because it did not comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)5., Florida Statutes (2022), which provides that an assignment of benefits agreement “must. . . [c]ontain a written, itemized, perunit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee.” The trial court found that the assignment was generic and not sufficiently specific to put the insureds on notice regarding the services to be performed. Because it found the assignment invalid under the statute, the trial court dismissed the

“Assignment agreement” means any instrument by which postloss benefits under a residential property insurance policy or commercial property insurance policy, as that term is defined in s. 627.0625(1), are assigned or transferred, or acquired in any manner, in whole or in part, to or from a person providing services, including, but not limited to, inspecting, protecting, repairing, restoring, or replacing the property or mitigating against further damage to the property. The term does not include fees collected by a public adjuster as defined in s. 626.854(1).

Attached to and incorporated into the assignment was an invoice, which described the service being provided by plaintiff as an “Engineer Report with Repair Plan,” a “quantity” of 1.0, and an estimated price of $5,000. On June 24, 2022, plaintiff submitted its invoice for $5,000 to defendant, who refused to issue payment, resulting in the action below for breach of the insurance contract. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the assignment failed to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)5., requiring that an assignment of benefits agreement “[c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee.” Defendant argued that the assignment in this case was generic and not sufficiently specific to put the insured on notice regarding the services to be performed. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

2 Defendant correctly notes that the Fourth District’s decision in SafePoint was released after the trial court rendered its order in the instant case. Defendant also correctly notes that the trial court would have been bound by our sister court’s opinion in SafePoint in the absence of any on-point law in this district or any other district. See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992) (“[I]n the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.”). However, the decision of our sister court in SafePoint is only to be considered persuasive, but not binding, authority on this court. See id. at 667 (“As between District Courts of Appeal, a sister district’s opinion is merely persuasive.” (quoting State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976))). Nevertheless, and as explained, we agree with and follow our sister court’s analysis in SafePoint on the issue presented in this appeal.

As can readily be seen, the assignment in SafePoint is identical in all material respects to the assignment of benefits in the instant case, and each assignment incorporated an invoice with an estimated cost for an engineering report with repair plan. On appeal, the defendant in SafePoint offered several arguments in support of affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. Among them, the very argument relied upon by the trial court in the instant case: that the assignment of benefits failed to satisfy the statute because the assignment agreement and invoice were “generic” and failed to adequately describe the specific service to be provided. The Fourth District rejected this argument, and held that “the service was sufficiently detailed because it listed a single service of an engineer report with an estimated cost of $3000.” Id. at 52 (citing MVP Plumbing, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 359 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)). In MVP Plumbing, the trial court dismissed the complaint for breach of the insurance contract, holding that the assignment of benefits failed to contain an itemized, per-unit cost estimate as required by section 627.7152(a)5. We reversed, holding that “the assignment expressly contemplated appellant would perform a single service, a pipe inspection, for