Florida’s Fifth District Reaffirms Appellate Consensus on Assignment of Benefits Contract Requirements

The Kidwell Group LLC dba AQA aao John Fortner v Citizens Property, Case No. 5D2024-1843 (December 19, 2025)

The Fifth District Court of Appeals rendered a decision further upholding the requirements set forth within Section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, finding valid an assignment of benefits, even though the insurance company argued that the assignment company’s purported paperwork was not detailed enough to satisfy the statutory requirements to render the contract valid and enforceable.

The underlying action concerned an assignment of benefits that attached an invoice as its so-called “Itemized Per-Unit Cost Invoice" that consisted of assessment services to prepare an engineering report with a repair plan for an estimated $3,000. The assignment agreement stated that both parties acknowledged that the itemized per-unit cost estimate/invoice was legally binding. Citizens declined to pay and argued that the contract did not contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services the assignee had to perform. The Kidwell Group filed suit, claiming that Citizens breached its insurance agreement by failing to pay for the engineer report. Citizens ultimately moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the assignment agreement was invalid because it failed to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice after a re-hearing.

The court opined that the plaintiff’s assignment agreement and the incorporated invoice plainly comport with the dictates of section 627.7152(2)(a)4 – an engineer report with repair plan. In reaching its decision, the Fifth District noted that the trial judge who dismissed the case failed to follow the Fourth District's SafePoint decision, even though that ruling was binding precedent. Specifically citing to prior decisions from the Third and Fourth districts (In Kidwell Group, LLC v. SafePoint Insurance Co., 376 So. 3d 48, 51–52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)), where the Fourth District determined that identical language within The Kidwell Group’s assignment agreement and incorporated invoice was “sufficiently detailed” to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a).

As it happens, the Third, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts are in agreement as to how to interpret section 627.7152(2)(a) as it pertains to similar engineering reports assignment agreements.