Security First Insurance Co. v. State, Office of Insurance Regulation
177 So. 3d 627
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Security First filed proposed homeowner policy amendments (June 24, 2013) adding: “Assignment of this policy or any benefit or post-loss right will not be valid unless we give our written consent.”
- The Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) disapproved the forms, finding the change would prohibit assignment of post-loss claims contrary to Florida law.
- Security First requested an informal hearing; the hearing officer upheld OIR’s disapproval as not clearly erroneous because the proposed language would mislead insureds about the need for insurer consent.
- Security First appealed the final OIR order to the court, arguing post-loss assignment may be restricted by policy language; OIR and precedent held otherwise.
- The court affirmed OIR, relying on an unbroken line of Florida authority that post-loss insurance claims are assignable without insurer consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an insured may assign post-loss rights without insurer consent | Security First: policy language can require written insurer consent to assignments of benefits/post-loss rights | OIR: Florida law and precedent allow post-loss assignments despite anti-assignment clauses; proposed language would mislead insureds | Held: Insureds may assign post-loss rights without insurer consent; OIR correctly disapproved the language |
| Whether OIR’s disapproval was erroneous under applicable law | Security First: OIR misinterpreted law and should have allowed the anti-assignment clause | OIR: consistent precedent bars insurer consent requirement for post-loss assignments | Held: OIR did not err in its legal interpretation; affirmance required |
| Whether the court should rehear or certify conflict with Fourth District decisions | Security First: requested rehearing and certification of conflict | OIR/court: Fourth District decisions are consistent with the rule that post-loss assignments are allowed | Held: Motions for rehearing and conflict certification denied |
| Whether the issue warrants certification as one of great public importance | Security First: public-policy harms (fraud, inflated claims) justify resolution by the Supreme Court | OIR/court: longstanding uniform precedent; policy concerns are for the Legislature | Held: Denied certification; legislative forum is appropriate for policy reform |
Key Cases Cited
- W. Fla. Grocery Co. v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 77 So. 209 (Fla. 1917) (longstanding rule that insurer consent is not required for assignments made after loss)
- Lexington Ins. Co. v. Simkins Indus., Inc., 704 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 1998) (insurer conceded post-loss assignment without consent is permissible)
- One Call Prop. Servs. Inc. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 165 So.3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (post-loss claims freely assignable; discusses policy trade-offs and the need for legislative review)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ifergane, 114 So.3d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (reiterating that post-loss insurance claims are assignable without insurer consent)
- Better Constr., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins., 651 So.2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (anti-assignment policy provisions do not bar after-loss claim assignments)
- Kohl v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., 955 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (upheld anti-assignment clause in health insurance context where public policy and statutes favor restricting assignments)