Nat'l Claims Funding Co. v. Sec. First Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 31 August 2022 |
Docket Number | 4D21-2331 |
Citation | 345 So.3d 915 |
Parties | NATIONAL CLAIMS FUNDING COMPANY, LLC, a/a/o Stella Restoration, LLC, a/a/o Minoude Jean Louis, Appellant, v. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robin F. Hazel of Hazel Law, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.
Angela C. Flowers of Kubicki Draper, Ocala, for appellee.
This case involves an assignment of insurance benefits subject to the requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2020). The trial court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that an assignee of benefits failed to timely provide a copy of the assignment agreement to the insurance company.
We reverse because dismissal on this ground was not appropriate at this early stage of the lawsuit.
In 2017, the insured sustained water damage to his home from Hurricane Irma. At the time of the loss, the insured maintained a policy with appellee, Security First Insurance Company. In 2020, the insured entered into an agreement with Stella Restoration, LLC to shrink wrap his roof in exchange for an assignment of his benefits under the insurance policy (the "Stella assignment"). On July 29, 2020, Stella executed a secondary assignment of benefits in favor of appellant National Claims Funding Company, LLC (the "NCF assignment").
NCF filed a breach of contract action against Security. The amended complaint alleged that the insured assigned his claim to Stella, that Stella assigned its interest to NCF, and that "[w]ritten assignments of benefits were properly executed by the fully authorized parties as a memorialization of the assignment agreements." The amended complaint attached both the Stella and the NCF assignments.
Security moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that NCF failed to timely provide a copy of the NCF assignment and that the assignment failed to contain information required by section 627.7152. The trial court granted Security's motion.
NCF filed a second amended complaint, which alleged in relevant part:
In addition to attaching the exhibits from the prior complaints, NCF attached emails from Stella and NCF to Security to show that the assignments were properly sent to Security. NCF's attached exhibits reflected that: (1) the Stella assignment was executed on July 17, 2020; (2) the NCF assignment was executed on July 29, 2020; (3) Stella generated an invoice for the shrink wrap on July 28, 2020; (4) Stella prepared an estimate that referenced a "date entered" and "date assigned" of July 9, 2020, and a "date job completed" of July 28, 2020; (5) Stella emailed Security on July 28, 2020, referencing an attached invoice and supporting documents and stating that "[t]he original estimate was sent 7/20/20"; and (6) NCF emailed Security on July 29, 2020, referencing certain attachments pertaining to the claim.
Security again moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion because the Stella assignment was not provided to Security within three business days after the date on which the assignment was executed or the date on which work began.
"When considering a motion to dismiss, the trial court must look only to the four corners of the complaint, including the attachments incorporated in it, and the allegations contained therein should be taken as true without regard to the pleader's ability to prove the same." K.W. Brown & Co. v. McCutchen , 819 So. 2d 977, 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). "It is not for the court to speculate whether the allegations are true or whether the pleader has the ability to prove them."
Sobi v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc. , 846 So. 2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (quoting Fox v. Pro. Wrecker Operators of Fla., Inc. , 801 So. 2d 175, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ). "Thus, ‘[t]he question for the trial court to decide is simply whether, assuming all the allegations in the complaint to be true, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief requested.’ " Id.
Section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2020)
In 2019, the Florida legislature enacted section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, "to regulate assignment agreements that seek to transfer insurance benefits from the policyholder to a third party." Total Care Restoration, LLC v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. , 337 So. 3d 74, 75–76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). The statute applies to assignment agreements "executed on or after July 1, 2019," and therefore governs the assignments at issue in this case. § 627.7152(13), Fla. Stat. (2020). Relevant to this appeal, subsection 627.7152(2)(a) provides:
§ 627.7152(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020). "An assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable." § 627.7152(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2020).
Subsections (2)(a) and (2)(d) of the statute must be read in conjunction with section 627.7152(3), which provides that when an assignee fails to timely deliver an assignment agreement to the insurer pursuant to the statute, the burden is on the assignee to demonstrate that the insurer was not prejudiced:
§ 627.7152(3), Fla. Stat. (2020).
When an insurer contends that an assignee failed to comply with the three-day notice provisions of section 627.7152, the statute makes prejudice to the insurer a necessary component of the dismissal equation and places the burden of proof on the party that failed to comply with the statute. To dismiss a case on this basis without regard to prejudice would be to render the language of subsection (3) superfluous. The Florida Supreme Court has "stated that words in a statute are not to be construed as superfluous if a reasonable construction exists that gives effect to all words." State v. Bodden , 877 So. 2d 680, 686 (Fla. 2004).
In lawsuits based on assignments, we have...
To continue reading
Request your trial