Florida Statute Limits Right of Insured to Assign Benefits of Insurance
Post 4972
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpmb-x4j, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g4TF5hgR and at https://lnkd.in/gm2_wWH9 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Holding Insurance Companies Accountable, LLC ("HICA" ) challenged the entry of summary judgment for American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida ("American Integrity" ). HICA, as an assignee of post-loss insurance benefits, sued American Integrity for breach of contract. The trial court ruled that HICA lacked standing to sue because the assignment that it relied on did not follow the governing statute.
Holding Insurance Companies Accountable, LLC a/a/o Leonard Caruso v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, No. 5D2023-2810, Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District (January 3, 2025) resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Leonard Caruso owns a house in The Villages. In 2019, the house suffered roof damage. Caruso reported the loss to his insurer, American Integrity. He selected Noland's Roofing to repair the damage and signed a "Direction of Payment" instructing American Integrity to pay Noland's Roofing directly.
After receiving American Integrity's valuation of his claim, Caruso signed an "Assignment of Benefits Contract" with HICA in 2020.
HICA is a business that purports to help homeowners enforce their insurance rights. The document indicated that HICA would not provide "any services to protect, repair, restore, or replace [Caruso's] property or to mitigate against further damage to [Caruso's] property, as contemplated by" section 627.7152, Florida Statutes. However, it stated that "[a]ny payments shall be made in accordance with any Direction of Payment relative to" Caruso's claim.
Ultimately, HICA-as Caruso's assignee-sued American Integrity for breach of contract, alleging that American Integrity failed to pay the full value of Caruso's claim. HICA demanded "payment in accordance with the existing Direction of Payment." American Integrity raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense, maintaining that the assignment was "invalid and/or void" and the court granted American Integrity's motion.
The court's order included these findings:
1. “The parties agree that [HICA] did not comply with the provisions of Fl. Stat. Sec. 627.7152. The issue for the Court to determine is whether the "assignment of benefits" obtained by [HICA] from CARUSO is subject to Fl. Stat. Sec. 627.7152 ....
2. “The Court specifically finds that there is sufficient evidence in this case to show that any money recovered in this case would be used to make repairs to the roof by Noland Roofing and that payment would be made to Noland Roofing.
3. “The Court finds that Noland's Roofing sent the direction to pay to American Integrity ....
4. “The Court finds that the Assignment Agreement specifically says that HICA will make payments in accordance with the direction to pay ("Any payments shall be made in accordance with any Direction of Payment relative to the below referenced claim" ).
5. “The Court finds that [HICA], through [its] Verified Answers to [American Integrity's] Interrogatories, has indicated that proceeds from any recovery in this case would be used to pay Noland's Roofing (‘Noland's Roofing, Inc. is the chosen contractor upon which the insured has executed a direction in pay in favor of.’).”
Section 627.7152 was enacted by the Florida legislature in 2019 to regulate assignment agreements that seek to transfer insurance benefits from the policyholder to a third party. Under the statute, an "[a]ssignment agreement" is "any instrument by which post-loss benefits under a residential property insurance policy . . . are assigned or transferred or acquired in any manner . . . to or from a person providing services to protect, repair, restore, or replace property or to mitigate against further damage to the property." § 627.7152(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2020).
Before assigning his benefits to HICA, Caruso signed a direction of payment in favor of Noland's Roofing, which instructed American Integrity to make Noland's Roofing a payee on any disbursement check. Here, the chosen vendor is Noland's Roofing. HICA's corporate representative also acknowledged that the goal of HICA's lawsuit was to recover the replacement cost of Caruso's roof, plus interest and related costs.
There was no genuine dispute that consistent with the assignment's terms, any funds recovered by HICA will go to Noland's Roofing. As the trial court found, this mandatory pass-through of benefits from HICA to Noland's Roofing places the assignment within the broad reach of section 627.7152. Even though HICA will not personally scale Caruso's house to repair his roof, it is seeking funds to facilitate those repairs.
The assignment HICA relies on is an "assignment agreement" under section 627.7152.
The legislature mandated that such assignments comply with all other provisions of that statute. Because the assignment here did not do so, it is "invalid and unenforceable." Without a valid assignment, HICA has no standing to sue American Integrity.
ZALMA OPINION
Because the state of Florida found that there was an abuse by roofers, contractors, and others by use of the assignment of benefits increasing unnecessary litigation impacting the availability of insurance for citizens of Florida, enacted a statute to limits the assignments. The statute was violated by Plaintiff HICA and its suit was found to be based upon an invalid and unenforceable assignment.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
