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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
