One Call Property Services, Inc. a/a/o William Hughes v. Security First Insurance Company
165 So. 3d 749
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- One Call Property Services sued Security First Insurance after providing emergency water-removal services to an insured and alleging the insured assigned his insurance proceeds to One Call as payment.
- The written assignment (attached to the complaint) purported to transfer all insurance rights and causes of action to One Call; the policy itself was not attached to the complaint but was filed with the insurer’s motion to dismiss.
- Security First moved to dismiss, arguing the assignment was invalid under the policy’s anti-assignment and loss-payment provisions and that no benefits were due at the time of assignment.
- The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice, relying on the anti-assignment and loss-payment provisions; One Call appealed.
- The Fourth District permitted consideration of the policy (incorporated by reference) and addressed whether the policy clauses barred a post-loss assignment.
- The court reversed the dismissal, holding that (under Florida law) post-loss assignments are not barred by standard anti-assignment or loss-payment clauses and that the right to benefits accrues at loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of post-loss assignment despite an anti-assignment clause | Post-loss assignments of insurance proceeds are valid under Florida law; assignment here is effective | Anti-assignment clause prohibits assignment; insured had nothing to assign pre-payment | Held for One Call: anti-assignment clause does not bar post-loss assignment; such assignments are permitted under Florida precedent |
| Effect of loss-payment clause on assignability (must payment be due before assignment?) | Loss-payment clause concerns timing of payment only; right to benefits accrues at the date of loss, so assignment valid even before payment is due | Loss-payment provision shows rights unaccrued until payment time, so assignment of unaccrued rights invalid | Held for One Call: loss-payment clause does not preclude assignment; right to benefits accrues at loss and suits can precede payment |
| Whether assignment improperly transfers an insured’s "duty to adjust" to assignee | Assignment transfers right to payment, not the insurer’s adjustment duty; assignee need not perform insured’s contractual duties | Assignment attempts to assign insured’s role in adjustment and unaccrued contractual duties | Held for One Call: policy language does not create an insured "duty to adjust" that prevents assignment; insured’s compliance with policy conditions remains required |
Key Cases Cited
- Continental Cas. Co. v. Ryan Inc. E., 974 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2008) (assignor loses rights once assignment made)
- Kohl v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 988 So.2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (policy language short of an express bar does not prohibit assignment)
- Curtis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 154 So.3d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (loss-payment clause does not render suit premature; lawsuits can occur before payment)
- Lexington Ins. Co. v. Simkins Indus., Inc., 704 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 1998) (recognizing post-loss assignability)
- W. Fla. Grocery Co. v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 77 So. 209 (Fla. 1917) (anti-assignment clauses do not apply to assignments after loss)
- Veal v. Voyager Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 51 So.3d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (attachments impliedly incorporated by reference may be considered on motion to dismiss)
- NextGen Restor., Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 126 So.3d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (discussing assignability in related context)
- Shaw v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 37 So.3d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (assignment of right to payment does not impose performance duties on assignee)