United Water Restoration Group, Inc. etc. v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company
173 So. 3d 1025
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Walker (insured by State Farm) suffered home water damage in 2012 and contracted with United Water for remediation.
- Walker executed a written assignment of “any and all insurance rights, benefits and proceeds” under his State Farm policy to United Water.
- United Water submitted a $2,744.64 bill to State Farm; State Farm refused payment, asserting the damage was excluded under the policy (repeated leakage, seepage, mold, rot, decay).
- United Water sued State Farm in county court as assignee for breach of contract, attaching the assignment and the bill.
- State Farm moved to dismiss (and for summary judgment), arguing coverage disputes must be pursued by the named insured, Walker, not the assignee.
- County court granted dismissal for that reason; the circuit court per curiam affirmed. United Water petitioned the District Court of Appeal for certiorari relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county court violated due process by considering matters outside the complaint when granting dismissal | United Water: dismissal improperly relied on State Farm’s coverage defense rather than the four corners of the complaint | State Farm: dismissal proper because coverage denial meant only named insured could pursue coverage dispute | Court: dismissal violated due process — county court went beyond the complaint and considered an affirmative defense prematurely |
| Whether an assignee of post‑loss insurance benefits may sue insurer directly | United Water: assignment vested right to sue; assignee may enforce assigned benefits | State Farm: only named insured may bring coverage action; assignee cannot pursue coverage determination | Court: clearly established law permits assignee to sue to enforce post‑loss assigned benefits; assignee may seek coverage determination |
| Whether dismissal barred United Water’s bargained enforcement rights | United Water: dismissal denied contractual enforcement of assignment | State Farm: enforcement must proceed via insured, not assignee | Court: dismissal had the harsh effect of barring enforcement and caused a miscarriage of justice; relief warranted |
| Whether certiorari relief appropriate from per curiam affirmance | United Water: circuit per curiam affirmance reviewable by district court | State Farm: (implicit) no special objection | Court: district court has jurisdiction to review circuit court’s per curiam affirmance of county court order |
Key Cases Cited
- Rich v. Fisher, 655 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1995) (district court jurisdiction over circuit per curiam affirmances of county court orders)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Edge Fam. Chiropractic, P.A., 41 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (addressing review of consolidated county court matters and per curiam affirmance)
- Nevitt v. Bonomo, 53 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (motion to dismiss must be confined to the complaint’s four corners)
- Wilson v. County of Orange, 881 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (dismissal should not be granted based on affirmative defenses outside the complaint)
- Parkway General Hospital, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 393 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (purpose of motion to dismiss is to test sufficiency of complaint; assignment of benefits allows third‑party suit)
- Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Pinnacle Medical, Inc., 753 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2000) (assignee’s right to sue for breach of contract enforcing assigned rights predates the Florida Constitution)
- Weiss v. Johnsen, 898 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (assignee stands in assignor’s shoes and is the real party in interest to enforce the claim)
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Ray, 556 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (an assignee may enforce payments or enforcement of obligations due under a policy)