SPARTAN SERVICES CORP.

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 4, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0289 Lower Tribunal No. 23-60651-CC-25 ________________

Spartan Services Corp., Appellant,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Luis Perez- Medina, Judge.

Insurance Trial Lawyers, and Camilo E. Pulido, for appellant.

Lydecker, LLP, and Michelle Diverio and Alejandro Sanchez Parraga, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

SCALES, C.J.

2

Appellant Spartan Services Corp. (“Spartan”) provided post-loss water mitigation services to homeowners who were insured under a policy issued by appellee Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”). Spartan and the insured had executed an assignment of benefits (“AOB”). Citizens denied payment of Spartan’s invoice on the premise that the AOB violated section 627.7152(7) of the Florida Statutes and was therefore invalid. The trial court agreed with Citizens and dismissed Spartan’s amended complaint with prejudice for lack of standing. Because the AOB is not violative of section 627.7152(7), and is not invalid, Spartan does have standing to sue Citizens, and we reverse the trial court’s August 14, 2024 dismissal order.

I. Relevant Background

The insureds, Paula Villa and Maykel Garcia, owned a home in Miami that was damaged, in 2022, by Hurricane Ian. On December 14, 2022, the insureds and Spartan executed the AOB, attached to which was a cost estimate of proposed water mitigation services. The AOB contained the following sentence: “Client agrees that any portion of work, deductibles, betterment, depreciation or additional work requested by the undersigned, not relating to the subject claim, must be paid by the undersigned on or before its completion.” (Emphasis added).

3

Citizens acknowledged the loss, assigned an adjustor and claim number, and completed an investigation. After Spartan performed the services, it submitted a bill to Citizens in the amount of $17,272.37. Citizens refused to pay Spartan’s invoice, alleging that the AOB violates section 627.7152(7),1 thereby making the AOB invalid and unenforceable.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in paragraph (b), acceptance by an assignee of an assignment agreement is a waiver by the assignee and its subcontractors of claims against a named insured for payments arising from the assignment agreement. The assignee and its subcontractors may not collect or attempt to collect money from an insured, maintain any action at law against an insured, claim a lien on the real property of an insured, or report an insured to a credit agency for payments arising from the assignment agreement. Such waiver remains in effect after the assignment agreement is rescinded by the assignor or after a determination that the assignment agreement is invalid.

(b) A named insured is responsible for the payment of all of the following:

1. Any deductible amount due under the policy.

2. Any betterment ordered and performed that is approved by the named insured.

3. Any contracted work performed before the assignment

agreement is rescinded.

§ 627.7152(7), Fla. Stat. (2022).

4

In June 2023, Spartan, asserting standing based on the AOB, sued Citizens for breach of contract. In its August 14, 2024 final order dismissing Spartan’s lawsuit with prejudice, the trial court concluded the AOB violated section 627.7152(7) and was therefore invalid. Spartan timely appealed.

II. Analysis2

Citizens argued below, as it does on appeal, that section 627.7152(7)(b) provides an exhaustive list of items for which an insured is responsible, and because “depreciation” is not contained in section 627.7152(7)(b)’s list – but is contained in the AOB as an item for which the insured is responsible – the AOB is invalid. If the AOB is invalid, Spartan, as a stranger to the insurance agreement between Citizens and its insured, would lack standing. We agree with Citizens that if the AOB were invalid, Spartan would lack standing. See Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 261 So. 3d 613, 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Because [the assignee] was not a party to – or a third party beneficiary of – the insurance contracts between the insureds and Citizens, there is no dispute that the only way the company

3 We note that the trial court in the instant matter did not have the benefit of Well Done Mitigation when it entered the challenged dismissal order.