QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED RECONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. A/A/O FALLON JALLALI, 21-0472

Insured's home suffered water damage; United Reconstruction was hired for emergency mitigation and presented an AOB agreement assigning insurance benefits to United.
The AOB form had a blank "Customer Print Name" but bore a signature on the signature line; United submitted the AOB and a $10,897.91 invoice to QBE.
QBE negotiated the invoice down to $8,603.20 and issued a check to the insured, who endorsed and cashed it.
United sued QBE for breach of the policy’s Loss Payment provision for paying the insured rather than United as assignee.
QBE defended that the written AOB was invalid because the signature was not the insured’s and submitted a forensic document examiner’s affidavit stating the AOB signature did not match known signatures.
The county court granted summary judgment for United despite the disputed-signature affidavit; the Fourth District reversed, holding material fact issues precluded summary judgment and rejecting an equitable-assignment finding without resolving who executed the AOB.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of written AOB / whether insured executed assignment	United: Insured executed or caused execution; AOB valid	QBE: Signature is not insured’s; AOB invalid	Reversed — affidavit by QBE’s forensic examiner created a genuine issue of material fact about execution; summary judgment improper
Breach of Loss Payment clause	United: As assignee United was legally entitled to payment; QBE breached by paying insured	QBE: Could not breach because no valid assignment existed	Court: Cannot find breach as a matter of law when assignment validity is disputed
Equitable assignment based on services performed	United: Performed work and has equitable assignment or assignment in equity	QBE: No evidence insured intended assignment; signature dispute fatal	Reversed — equitable assignment cannot be found without resolving who executed the AOB and insured’s intent
Procedural challenges to QBE’s evidence / standing to contest AOB	United: Argued QBE lacked standing and forensic affidavit inadmissible	QBE: Properly challenged AOB and submitted admissible affidavit	Court implicitly allowed affidavit and rejected United’s standing argument; considered QBE’s evidence as creating factual dispute

State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lime Bay Condo., Inc., 187 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
Cufferi v. Royal Palm Dev. Co., 516 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (movant must disprove affirmative defenses; summary judgment improper if factual disputes remain)
Schuster v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 843 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (insured may assign rights to insurance benefits)
United Water Restoration Grp., Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 173 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (assignee can sue in its own name after assignment of policy benefits)
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ifergane, 114 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (intent of parties controls existence of assignment)
E. Qualcom Corp. v. Glob. Com. Ctr. Ass’n, 59 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (any doubt in affidavits/evidence precludes summary judgment)
SourceTrack, LLC v. Ariba, Inc., 958 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (equitable assignment may be found to effectuate intent or avoid injustice)
McClure v. Century Ests., Inc., 120 So. 4 (Fla. 1928) (equitable assignment requires mutual intent to assign and receive)