Fifth District Court of Appeal Rules Insurance Benefit Assignment to Roofing Contractor Invalid Under Florida Statute § 627.7152.

The homeowner reported roof damage to his homeowners insurance carrier, American Integrity Insurance. He signed a “Direction of Payment” with Noland’s Roofing, instructing his carrier to pay Noland’s Roofing directly. After receiving a damage estimate from the carrier, the homeowner signed an “Assignment of Benefits Contract” with Holding Insurance. The contract indicated Holding Insurance would not provide any “services to protect, repair, restore or replace” any of the homeowner’s property. The contract also stated payments should be made in accordance with any direction of payment relative to the claim. 

As the homeowner’s assignee, Holding Insurance sued American Integrity for breach of contract, alleging the assignment was not an “Assignment Agreement” under Florida Statute § 627.7152, rendering that statute inapplicable to the claim. However, the carrier raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense, asserting the assignment was an “Assignment Agreement” and was invalid and void for its failure to comply with the provision of § 627.7152. The carrier moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding the contract was an “Assignment Agreement” because the proceeds of any recovery would be used to pay Noland’s Roofing and that Holding Insurance was obligated to make those payments in accordance with the direction to pay. Because there was no dispute that the contract did not comply with the requirements for “Assignment Agreements” pursuant to § 627.7152, the trial court found the contract invalid and unenforceable and granted summary judgment. Holding Insurance appealed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that, because there was no dispute that the funds recovered by Holding Insurance would go to Noland’s Roofing, this mandatory pass through of benefits from Holding Insurance to Noland’s Roofing “placed the assignment within the broad reach of Florida Statute § 627.7152.” The district court stated, even though Holding Insurance will not “personally scale the house to repair his roof, it is seeking funds to facility those repairs” and the boilerplate disclaimer in the contract does not change that undisputed fact. 

The district court ultimately ruled that the contract was an assignment under Florida Statute § 627.7152 and it did not comply with the other provisions of that statute. Therefore, the contract was invalid and unenforceable, and Holding Insurance had no standing. The order granting summary judgment was affirmed.  

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – March 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}