Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

Mucciaccios was invalid and unenforceable under section 627.7152(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2019). We have jurisdiction

should be dismissed for failing to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2020), which at

... Appellants, Jeremiah and Joel Adjei, as assignees of Kwaku and Beatrice Adjei, challenge a final order dismissing their breach of contract lawsuit against appellee, First Community Insurance Company, for lack of standing. The primary issue on appeal is whether applying section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2019), to the assignment of a claim for post-loss insurance benefits under a policy issued prior to enactment of the statute is constitutionally authorized.1 Concluding that applying the statute to the assign...

...The statute was enacted three years after the policy issued, and the policy is devoid of any anti-assignment clause. Moreover, we find no abuse of discretion in the dismissal “with prejudice.” 2  On July 1, 2019, section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, took effect....

...ownership of the residence. Relying upon the assignment, appellants filed suit against First Community. The trial court dismissed early iterations of the complaint, without prejudice, on the basis the assignment failed to comply with the requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes....

...Part and parcel with their factual allegations, appellants contended they were not service professionals but rather the children of the named insureds. First Community again sought dismissal on the basis that appellants lacked standing because the assignment of benefits failed to conform with section 627.7152, Florida Statutes....

...provision, and language confirming that the assignees would furnish the insurer with a copy of the agreement within three business days after either execution or commencement of work. Appellants countered by arguing that the assignment was not subject to the requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, because it did not fall within the statutory definition of “assignment agreement,” and applying the statute to the assignment of a claim under a 2016 policy constituted an unconstitutional impairment of contract....

...has standing to bring an action,” Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So. 3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and the dismissal of a complaint with prejudice, Sanchez v. County of Volusia, 331 So. 3d 853, 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021). Similarly, we review de novo whether applying section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, to an assignment of benefits under a policy incepted prior to the enactment of the statute is constitutionally permissible. ANALYSIS First enacted in 2019, section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, regulates certain assignment agreements “seek[ing] to transfer insurance benefits from the policyholder to a third party.”3 Total Care Restoration, LLC v. Citizens Prop....

...The statute applies to any assignment of post-loss benefits “to or from a person providing services to protect, repair, restore, or replace property or to mitigate against further damage to the property” executed on or after July 1, 2019. § 627.7152(1)(b), (13), Fla. Stat. 3 The 2019 version of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, is the applicable version in this case because that is the version of the statute that was in effect when the assignment was executed....

...Included among the requirements is that the assignment must be in writing, executed by and between the assignor and the assignee, and contain several boilerplate provisions regarding liability, rescission, and delivery of the agreement to the insurer. See § 627.7152(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Statutorily noncompliant assignment agreements, without exception, are deemed “invalid and unenforceable.” § 627.7152(2)(d), Fla. Stat. Appellants do not contend their assignment is statutorily compliant. Rather, they claim their assignment is not subject to the reach of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, because it was not “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. While not every assignment triggers the requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, here, the plain language of the assignment belies appellants’ claim that they did not agree to restore or repair the property. The assignment specifically provides that appellants warrant to “insure mainten...

...es not purport to prohibit or restrict the right of an insured to assign a post-loss claim. As a result, at the time the policy issued, the named insureds were free to execute a post-loss assignment. At first glance, the “checklist” in section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, might appear to curtail that right....

...already completed.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. This conclusion is consistent with several decisions by our sister courts. See Kidwell Grp., LLC v. Olympus Ins. Co., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1571, D1571 (Fla. 5th DCA July 22, 2022) (“[B]ased on the plain language of [section 627.7152, Florida Statutes], the trial court properly applied section 627.7152 prospectively to the assignment agreement in this case.”); Total Care Restoration, LLC, 337 So. 3d at 77 (“This case does not involve the application of a statute to a preexisting insurance policy; it concerns a statute’s application to an assignment created after the effective date of the statute. Thus, section 627.7152—the law in effect at the time the assignment 11 of benefits was executed—was properly applied to the assignment in this case.”); see also SFR Servs., LLC, 529 F. Supp. at 1289–90 (maintaining section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, did not affect substantive rights under insurance policy and only established procedural requirements for effective formation of an assignment of benefits); JPJ Servs. LLC v. N.H. Ins. Co., No. 21-14329-CIV, 2022 WL 1908970, at *4–5 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2022) (applying section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, to an assignment agreement created in 2020 of an insurance policy issued prior to enactment of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes)....

assignment of benefits did not comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2020), rendering

...The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Jatin Patel (“Kidwell”) appeals an order dismissing its complaint with prejudice after the trial court determined that an agreement assigning Kidwell insurance proceeds failed to comply with section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2020). Kidwell argues, inter alia, that the assignment agreement (the “assignment”) is merely voidable rather than void, and as a result, ASI Preferred Insurance Corp....

...invoice.1 1 Kidwell also attached another invoice for $3,500 but dropped that claim during the hearing below. 2 ASI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Kidwell failed to comply with section 627.7152 and therefore lacked standing as an assignee. In opposition, Kidwell argued that failing to comply with the statute merely rendered the assignment voidable, not void, and that ASI does not have standing to challenge the assignment if it is merely voidable. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint, reasoning that Kidwell did not comply with section 627.7152.2 This appeal follows. On the Merits On appeal, Kidwell asserts that ASI does not have standing to challenge the assignment because it was merely voidable, relying heavily on the reasoning in SFR Services, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 529 F. Supp. 3d 1285, 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2021). As we explain below, we disagree with Kidwell and hold that ASI has standing to challenge the assignment pursuant to section 627.7152. Standing “To have standing, a party must demonstrate a direct and articulable interest in the controversy, which will be affected by the outcome of the 2 We conclude, without further discussion, that the invoice delivered after execution of the assignment in this case demanding payment for work performed failed to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4.’s requirement that the assignment agreement include a “written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed.” 3 litigation.” Centerstate Bank Cent....

...(citation omitted). Interpretation of the Statute ASI’s interest in this case, and therefore its standing to challenge the assignment, turns on the meaning of the terms “invalid” and “unenforceable” as used in section 627.7152(2)(d). That provision provides: An assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable. § 627.7152(2)(d). “In interpreting the statute, we follow the ‘supremacy-of-text principle’—namely, the principle that ‘[t]he words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means.’” Forrester v....

...mandates that the assignment agreement “[c]ontain a provision requiring the assignee to provide a copy of the executed assignment agreement to the insurer within 3 business days” after execution or the date work begins, whichever is earlier. § 627.7152(2)(a)3. Second, subsection (2)(a)4. then provides that the assignment agreement must include “a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed.” § 627.7152(2)(a)4. Third, and perhaps most compelling, the statute requires an assignee “to demonstrate that the insurer is not prejudiced by the assignee’s failure to 7 . . . [d]eliver a copy of the executed assignment agreement to the insurer within 3 business days after executing the assignment agreement or work has begun, whichever is earlier.” § 627.7152(3)(d). Taken together, these additional provisions leave little doubt that ASI has standing to challenge the assignment in this case....

...529 F. Supp. 3d at 1294. We disagree with SFR Services for two primary reasons. First, that case emphasized common law definitions of the terms “void” and “voidable”—but we are interpreting a statute, and those terms are not used in section 627.7152(2)(d) at all. Second, and importantly, while SFR Services analyzed the term “invalid,” it failed to fully consider the other term used in the statute—that the assignment is “unenforceable.” As observed above, even...

...Experts, 47 Fla. L. Weekly at D2068. 9  Therefore, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute’s text, we conclude that ASI has standing to challenge the assignment for failing to comply with section 627.7152. AFFIRMED. EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur. 10 

was invalid because it did not comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)5., Florida Statutes (2022), which provides

of signing and were therefore invalid under section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2021).

...which merely add up to provisions related to process and procedure. Appellant complains about the presuit notification provisions in section 627.70152(3), Florida Statutes (2021). Additionally, appellant complains that the insurer must respond within 10 business days. § 627.7152(4), Fla....

...in this case, and as such, not relevant to our determination. 2 Cf. Water Damage Express, LLC v. First Protective Ins. Co., 336 So. 3d 310, 312-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (considering issue of retroactive application of attorney’s fees provision under section 627.7152(10) where trial court’s order struck appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees). Even if attorney’s fees were at issue, simply because the right to attorney’s fees in subsection (8) is substantive and not able to be appli...

...ial court went outside the four corners of the complaint when granting the motion to dismiss and striking the request for attorney’s fees. On this record, while Appellant’s report might not be necessary, the trial court could not determine if section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2019), applies without, at a minimum, the insurance policy. However, the policy was not attached to or sufficiently incorporated in the complaint, and for reasons unexplained on this record, Appellee did not move to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with rule 1.130(a)....

...Levy, P.A., Miami, for appellee. FORST, J. Appellant Water Damage Express appeals the trial court’s order granting appellee First Protective Insurance’s (“Insurer”) motion to strike Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees. On appeal, Appellant argues that because the legislature never intended for section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes (2019) to apply retroactively, the trial court erred in finding that section 627.7152(10) barred Appellant from recovering attorney’s fees....

...section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (2018), the controlling statute for attorney’s fees in an assignment of benefits action at the time when the Insured and Appellant entered the AOB. Insurer, on the other hand, asserted that Appellant’s attorney’s fees claim was governed by section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes (2019), the controlling statute when Appellant filed suit. Accordingly, Insurer filed a motion to strike Appellant’s request for attorney’s fees, claiming section 627.7152(10) barred recovery. In response to Insurer’s motion to strike, Appellant argued section 627.428(1) controlled its attorney’s fees claim because section 627.428(1) controlled at the time of loss. Furthermore, Appellant claimed section 627.7152 could not be applied retroactively because it concerned substantive—not procedural—rights. The trial court granted Insurer’s motion to strike. The trial court determined section 627.7152(10)’s plain language “clearly states” the statute applies to the date the suit is filed—not the date that the AOB is entered....

...This appeal followed. Analysis When the denial of a motion for attorney’s fees is predicated on statutory interpretation, we review the underlying questions de novo. Destination Boat Clubs, Inc. v. Island Breeze Boat Club & Rental Inc., 226 So. 3d 301, 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). Section 627.7152(10) pertains to the recovery of attorney’s fees in “a suit related to an assignment agreement for post-loss claims arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy . . . .” § 2 627.7152(10), Fla. Stat. (2019). Attorney’s fees and costs for such suits “may be recovered by an assignee only under s. 57.105 and this section.” Id. Before section 627.7152’s enactment in 2019, the award of attorney’s fees relative to insurance policy disputes was controlled by section 627.428(1). 1 The parties agree that Appellant would have a valid claim to attorney’s fees under section 627.428(1), but would not be able to recover such fees under section 627.7152(10). Thus, the fundamental question in this case is whether the motion for attorney’s fees is governed by: (a) section 627.428(1), the statute in effect when the homeowners became insured by Insurer, when the homeowners suffered a covered loss, and when the AOB agreement was entered; or (b) section 627.7152(10), the statute in effect when Appellant filed suit. The trial court sided with Insurer and found “the plain language of section 627.7152[] clearly states that it’s related to the date the suit is filed and not the date the assignment of benefits is signed.” However, the trial court’s interpretation of section 627.7152 is contradicted by the face of the statute. Section 627.7152(13) states, “[t]his section applies to an assignment agreement executed on or after July 1, 2019.” (emphasis added). Although the legislature later moved the effective date of the legislation to May 24, 2019—see 2019 Florida House Bill No. 337, Florida One Hundred Twenty-First Regular Session—it never evinced any intent for section 627.7152 to apply retroactively to assignment agreements executed before May 24, 2019. In Menendez v....

...2021-77, § 9, Laws of Fla. 3 statute in effect at the time the insureds’ insurance policy was issued”); Timmons v. Combs, 608 So. 2d 1, 2–3 (Fla. 1992). The supreme court has also found that—prior to its replacement by section 627.7152—“the terms of section 627.428 [were] an implicit part of every insurance policy issued in Florida.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1993). Several federal courts have addressed the issue before us. These courts determined the legislature did not express an intent for section 627.7152(10) to apply retroactively and, regardless, “Florida law is clear that the statutory right to attorney’s fees is a substantive right and that the ‘statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substant...

...4, 2020) (“[T]he statutory change—which limits the right to recover attorney fees, impairing a substantive right—nevertheless does not apply retroactively to the insurance policy at issue in this action, which was issued before the effective date of the change.”). Similarly, the court in JPJ Companies held that section 627.7152 could not be applied retroactively regardless of the legislature’s intent: Here, the Court does not read Fla. Stat. § 627.7152 as reflecting an intent by the Florida Legislature for the change to § 627.7152(10) to apply retroactively, and Defendant has pointed to no other expression of an intent by the Legislature for the statutory change to apply retroactively. See generally Fla. Stat. § 627.7152. Even if the Legislature expressed such an intent, the statutory change—which limits the right to recover attorney fees, impairing a substantive right— nevertheless does not apply retroactively to t...

...9:19-CV-81696, 2020 WL 1043798 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020). 4  Additionally, one federal court focused on the date of the AOB, rather than the date the insurance policy was issued, noting: Fla. Stat. § 627.7152 explicitly applies to assignment agreements between an insured and an assignee. See Fla. Stat. § 627.7152....

...Co. of the Midwest, No. 2:19-CV-613, 2020 WL 820235 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2020) (emphasis added). The court rejected the argument that “the operative date to consider is the date the litigation commenced,” finding that “the plain language of Fla. Stat. § 627.7152 does not support [this] argument.” Id. In the instant case, Insurer issued a property insurance policy to the homeowners at some point before August 12, 2018, the date of the covered loss. The homeowners and Appellant signed an AOB on August 27, 2018. All three of these pertinent events occurred before May 24, 2019, the effective date of section 627.7152(10). Moreover, section 627.7152(10)’s plain language does not demonstrate a legislative intent to designate the date a complaint was filed as the reference point for determining the applicability of the 2019 statutory amendment. To the contrary, section 627.7152(10), as amended, states, “[t]his section applies to an assignment agreement executed on or after [May 24, 2019].” § 627.7152(13), Fla. Stat. (2019). Per Menendez and the statute’s plain language, whether the pertinent focus is the date when Insurer issued the policy or the date when the AOB was entered, retroactive application of section 627.7152(10) is impermissible. Conclusion As set forth above, the trial court erred in striking Appellant’s section 627.428(1) motion for attorney’s fees....

... INTRODUCTION Total Care Restoration, LLC (as assignee of Yoel Bernal) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing its breach of contract complaint with prejudice. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on Total Care’s failure to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2021), 1 which provides that an assignment of benefits agreement must “[c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee.” (Emphasis added)....

...the list described above), together with invoices submitted to Citizens for the work performed. Citizens moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, contending that the assignment of benefits agreement, on its face, failed to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2021) (requiring that an assignment of benefits agreement “[c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee”) rendering the assignment agreement invalid and unenforceable. Id. § 627.7152(2)(d) (providing: “An assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable.”) More specifically, Citizens contended the assignment agreement did not contain “a written, itemized, per-...

...Following a hearing, the trial court entered its order dismissing the case with prejudice, on the basis that the assignment agreement was invalid and unenforceable because it does not contain the itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed as required by section 627.7152(2)(a)4., but instead simply a list of available services offered by Total Care....

...ect to de novo review. Aramark Unif. and Career Apparel, Inc. v. Easton, 894 So. 2d 20, 23 (Fla. 2004); Mattino v. City of Marathon, 345 So. 3d 939, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Enacted by the legislature in 2019, section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2021), governs assignment of benefits agreements....

...Subsection (2)(a) enumerates several requirements for a valid and enforceable assignment of benefits agreement. Relevant to the instant case, the statute requires: “An assignment agreement must. . . [c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee.” Id. § 627.7152(2)(a)4....

...of an available service performed on an emergency versus non-emergency basis. Such a generic menu of services available to any customer manifestly fails to comply with the “itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed” required by section 627.7152(2)(a)4. Indeed, this document is not an “estimate” at all, because it fails to set forth: the specific services being performed by Total Care on Mr....

...ment that “[a]n assignment agreement must . . . [c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee,” and the failure to comply meant that the assignment was “invalid and unenforceable.” §§ 627.7152(2)(a)4., (2)(d). In response, the assignee in Air Quality raised many of the same arguments Total Care raises here: the price list attached to the assignment agreement was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements; and the in...

...alid assignment.” Id. at 37- 38. The Fourth District further held: Here the statute expressly declares [that] an assignment violative of its requirements is ‘invalid and unenforceable’, precluding its enforcement by courts. § 627.7152(2)(d)....

...3d at 38. The Fifth District has likewise declined to adopt the reasoning of SFR Services, see Kidwell Grp., LLC v. ASI Preferred Ins. Corp., 351 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), and held that the insurer has standing to challenge the 10 assignment pursuant to section 627.7152, and that the phrase “invalid and unenforceable” as used in this statute, does not mean voidable....

...We agree, and conclude that Total Care’s assignment is precisely what the plain language of the statute says it is: “invalid and unenforceable,” and Citizens has standing to challenge the assignment as such. Given that the statute is unambiguous, and that the assignment agreement, on its face, fails to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4., the assignment is invalid and unenforceable, and the trial court properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice. CONCLUSION We adopt the rationale and holding of the Fourth District in Air Quality and the Fifth District in Kidwell. The failure to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4 rendered the assignment agreement “invalid and unenforceable” under section 627.7152(2)(d), and subject to challenge by Citizens, the insurer....

...This case asks whether a contract between a homeowner and a restoration services contractor for the provision of post-loss remedial services covered by the terms of a residential property insurance policy is an “assignment agreement” as defined in section 627.7152(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2021). Because we conclude that the contract at issue is an “assignment agreement” that did not adhere to the requirements of section 627.7152 to be enforceable, we reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment. Background In July 2021, Ronda Ellis (“the homeowner” or “owner”) sustained water damage at her residential property....

...Titan then sued her for breach of contract, seeking declaratory relief and liquidated damages, as provided in the contract. The homeowner argued among her affirmative defenses that the contract was an invalid and unenforceable “assignment agreement” under section 627.7152. Titan moved for summary judgment....

...4th DCA 2011) (contracts). Under Florida law, 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, in whole or in part, to or from a person providing services[.]” § 627.7152(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2021) (emphasis added). For an “assignment agreement” to be valid and enforceable, it must meet specific, statutory requirements. See § 627.7152(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) (stating what requirements an “assignment agreement” must satisfy); § 627.7152(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2021) (stating what provisions an “assignment agreement may not contain”); § 627.7152(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2021) (“An assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable.”); see also Air Quality Experts, 351 So. 3d at 38-39 (“[Section 627.7152(2)(d)] expressly declares an assignment violative of its requirements is ‘invalid and unenforceable,’ precluding its enforcement by courts.” (quoting § 627.7152(2)(d), Fla....

...ommence if the assignee has not substantially performed, or at least 30 days after the execution of the agreement if the agreement does not contain a commencement date and the assignee has not begun substantial work on the property[,]” contrary to section 627.7152(2)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2021). Second, it does not display, “in 18-point uppercase and boldface type[,]” a notice about the rights an insured is giving up under the insurance policy at issue, contrary to section § 627.7152(2)(a)6., Fla. Stat. (2021). And lastly, it contains a liquidated damage provision contrary to 627.7152(2)(b)3., Fla....

...Included in this list of actions are the “negotiation of any check issued by the Insurer for the work performed under this agreement to anyone other than Titan” and “[f]ailure on the part of the owner to execute any assignment of insurance proceeds requested by Titan[.]” (Emphasis added). Section 627.7152(1)(b) defines an “assignment agreement” as “any instrument” that causes the assignment, transfer, or acquirement, “in whole or in part,” of the post-loss insurance benefits to or from a person providing services. The contract here unequivocally meets this definition because under its plain language, it causes “in whole or in part” the assignment, transfer, or acquirement of the homeowner’s post-loss insurance benefits. See § 627.7152(1)(b), Fla....

...2024) (defined as “to pass or hand over from one to another, esp[ecially] to change over the possession or control of”); Acquire, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defined as to “obtain by any means”). Moreover, the contract does not comply with section 627.7152(2) because it does not contain the provisions required by sections 627.7152(2)(a)2. and 627.7152(2)(a)6., and allows Titan to recover liquidated damages for the homeowner’s material breach of the contract, including the contract’s cancellation, in violation of section 627.7152(2)(b)3., which prohibits “[a] penalty or fee for cancellation of the agreement[.]” Conclusion Because the contract satisfies section 627.7152’s definition of an “assignment agreement” and does not comply with the statute’s specific requirements, it is “invalid and unenforceable.” See § 627.7152(2)(d), Fla. Stat....

...zens Property Insurance Corporation in Well Done Mitigation's breach of contract action. On appeal, Well Done Mitigation argues that the trial court erred in granting dismissal because the assignment of benefits agreement tracks the requirements of section 627.7152(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2023), and the agreement was not invalid or unenforceable....

...breach of contract, seeking to recover $31,389.22 in damages. Thereafter, Citizens moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, arguing that Well Done Mitigation lacked standing because the assignment agreement failed to comply with subsections 627.7152(7)(a) and (7)(b) and therefore was invalid and unenforceable....

...Following a hearing, the trial court entered its order dismissing the case with prejudice on the basis that the assignment agreement was invalid because it included a client agreement to pay "depreciation or additional work," which was not in compliance with section 627.7152(7)(a). Well Done Mitigation filed a motion for rehearing, which the court denied, and this appeal ensued. We review de novo the trial court's granting of a motion to dismiss as well as issues of statutory interpretation....

...early identical paragraphs to say the same thing? It would not. A closer look at the first paragraph reveals that it addresses payment for services "requested that is not covered by insurance." And requiring payment for such services is in line with section 627.7152. Specifically, subsection (7)(a) limits the scope of the assignee's waiver of claims against the named insured to payments "arising from the assignment agreement." First, this implicitly contemplates a valid assignment agreement....

...And second, a requirement of a valid assignment agreement is that it "[r]elate only to work to be performed by the assignee for services to protect, repair, restore, or replace a dwelling or structure or to mitigate against further damage to such property." § 627.7152(2)(a)6. Thus, services beyond those listed would not arise out of the assignment agreement and would not be covered by insurance....

...5  Therefore, we conclude that the assignment agreement did not violate either subsection (7)(a) or (7)(b). However, even if it did, such a violation would not render the entire assignment agreement invalid. Section 627.7152 includes provisions setting forth what an assignment must entail in order to be valid and enforceable. Specifically, subsection (2) prescribes the requirements and limitations of a valid assignment agreement. See § 627.7152(2)(a), (b). Nested within subsection (2), the legislature deliberately placed the validity language that "[a]n assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable." § 627.7152(2)(d) (emphasis added). Importantly, Citizens never alleged that Well Done Mitigation's assignment agreement failed to comply with subsection (2)'s requirements....

...Rather, courts have invalidated the entire agreement only for violations of subsection (2). See, e.g., Gale Force Roofing & Restoration, LLC v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla., 380 So. 3d 1242, 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (affirming dismissal of complaint with prejudice where the assignment agreement violated section 627.7152(2)(a)2); Ellis v. Titan Restoration Constr., Inc., No. 4D24-0085, 2025 WL 778470, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 12, 2025) (invalidating an assignment agreement for violating sections 627.7152(2)(a)2, 627.7152(2)(a)6, and 627.7152(2)(b)3); Air Quality Experts Corp., 351 So. 3d at 34-35 (affirming dismissal of complaint with prejudice where the assignment agreement violated section 627.7152(2)(a)4); Total Care Restoration, LLC v....

...Appellant raises multiple arguments on appeal, which we affirm without discussion. We write only to explain our affirmance as to Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in concluding the assignment of benefits failed to comply with sections 627.7152(2)(a)1. and 627.7152(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2021). Section 627.7152(2)(a) provides in pertinent part: (2)(a) An assignment agreement must:  1. Be in writing and executed by and between the assignor and the assignee. .... 4. Contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee. § 627.7152(2)(a)1., 4., Fla....

...exhibit controls when its language is inconsistent with the complaint’s allegations.”). As such, the trial court properly concluded the assignment did not contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by Appellant as required by sections 627.7152(2)(a)1. and 627.7152(2)(a)4....

...ity Assessors of Florida a/a/o Maria Amadio (“Kidwell”), appeals an order granting Olympus Insurance Company’s (“Olympus”) motion to dismiss with prejudice arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred because it retroactively applied section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2019)....

...Then, in October of 2019, Amadio executed an assignment of benefits in favor of Kidwell. Kidwell submitted an invoice to Olympus and later filed suit when Olympus failed to make payment. Olympus moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the purported assignment to Kidwell did not comply with section 627.7152. In response to the motion to dismiss, Kidwell observed that the insurance policy was issued before the statute’s effective date. As such, Kidwell argued that the statute as written did not indicate that it applies retroactively to the insurance policy, and in any event, retroactive application of section 627.7152 to the policy would be unconstitutional. The trial court disagreed with Kidwell and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, reasoning that section 627.7152 applies to the date of the 2 assignment of benefits and not, as Kidwell advanced, the date the insurance policy was issued. This appeal follows. Application of Section 627.7152 On appeal, Kidwell does not claim that it complied with section 627.7152....

...statute does not apply retroactively to the policy. We conclude that Kidwell’s argument is without merit because the operative date for purposes of the statute is the date of the assignment, not the date the insurance policy was issued. Section 627.7152 provides a list of requirements for any agreement that assigns post-loss benefits under a property insurance policy “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), (2)(a). Any assignment agreement that fails to comply with these requirements is “invalid and unenforceable.” § 627.7152(2)(d). Important here, the statute expressly applies to assignment agreements “executed on or after July 1, 2019.” § 627.7152(13).1 1 The effective date of the act is also July 1, 2019....

...2019-57, § 6, Laws of Fla. 3  Recently, our sister court addressed Kidwell’s argument in Total Care Restoration, LLC v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 337 So. 3d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). In that case, the fourth district considered whether section 627.7152’s ten-day notice requirement “applies to an assignment of insurance benefits executed after the effective date of the statute, even where the underlying policy was issued before that effective date.” Id....

...In so doing, Total Care explained: This case does not involve the application of a statute to a preexisting insurance policy; it concerns a statute’s application to an assignment created after the effective date of the statute. Thus, section 627.7152—the law in effect at the time the assignment of benefits was executed—was properly applied to the assignment in this case. Id....

...considered whether the plaintiff assignee’s claim to attorney’s fees was 2 The United States District Court did not have the benefit of Total Care at the time it decided Procraft. 4 governed by the new statute, section 627.7152(10), or by the previously controlling statute, section 627.428. Id. Notably, Procraft acknowledged that the assignment was executed after section 627.7152(10)’s effective date, but unlike Total Care, held that section 627.7152(10) did not apply because section 627.428 “was the effective statute when the insurance policy was issued.” Id....

...Progressive Express Insurance Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 878–79 (Fla. 2010) to support its analysis. However, those cases are inapposite for the reasons explained in Total Care. See Total Care, 337 So. 3d at 77. 5 627.7152. As a result, Kidwell never successfully stepped into the shoes of the insured. Having rejected Procraft, we align ourselves with Total Care4 and hold that, based on the plain language of the statute, the trial court properly applied section 627.7152 prospectively to the assignment agreement in this case....

...In short, legislative history is irrelevant to our analysis in this case because it is inconsistent with our application of the supremacy-of- text principle. Given our disposition, we need not reach Kidwell’s argument that 5 retroactive application of section 627.7152 to the insurance policy would be unconstitutional. 6 

...Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Affirmed. See Kidwell Grp., LLC v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 343 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (affirming dismissal of complaint with prejudice where assignment failed to comply with section 627.7152); Kidwell Grp., LLC v....

...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....

...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.” It alleged the assignment from Caruso was not an “Assignment Agreement” under section 627.7152, rendering that statute inapplicable....

...It raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense, maintaining that the assignment was “invalid and/or void.” American Integrity later moved for summary judgment on this same basis. HICA opposed summary judgment by again arguing that the assignment was beyond the scope of section 627.7152, and therefore, did not have to follow that statute to be valid. The court granted American Integrity’s motion. The court’s order included these findings: 6. 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 ....

...Summary judgment is proper when the movant shows (1) the absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact and (2) entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a). Here, HICA and American Integrity agree that if an assignment is governed by section 627.7152, it must comply with that statute to be valid. They also agree that the assignment here does not comply with the statute. Their disagreement is over the threshold question of whether the assignment falls under the statute in the first place. 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.” Total Care Restoration, LLC v....

...esidential 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....

...assignment’s terms, any funds recovered by HICA will go to Noland’s Roofing, the contractor Caruso chose to fix his roof. As the trial court found, this mandatory passthrough of benefits from HICA to Noland’s Roofing places the assignment within the broad reach of section 627.7152....

...facilitate those repairs. The boilerplate disclaimer in the assignment does not sanitize this dispositive, undisputed fact. See Kidwell Grp., LLC v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla., 347 So. 3d 501, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (holding that an assignment was governed by section 627.7152, even though the assignee “attempt[ed] to disguise it as something else” by including a disclaimer like the one in this case). III. The assignment HICA relies on is an “assignment agreement” under section 627.7152. The legislature has 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.” § 627.7152(2)(d), Fla....

...y, Chiaka Ihekwaba, Judge. Tyler Law Firm, and Ryan C. Tyler, for appellant. Methe & Rothell, P.A., and Kristi Bergemann Rothell (West Palm Beach), for appellee. Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Affirmed. See § 627.7152(2)(a)7., Fla....

...Although Gale Force brought the action as the assignee of American Integrity's insured, the trial court determined that Gale Force lacked standing to do so on the basis that the assignment of benefits (AOB) attached to the complaint failed to satisfy the requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2021).1 Because the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint on the basis of an invalid assignment, we affirm....

...That is because, even accepting for purposes of analysis Gail Force's primary contention that the court should have evaluated all six pages to determine statutory compliance, we reach the same result: the AOB is invalid and unenforceable under the plain language of section 627.7152(2). 1 This statute has since been amended, but the parties agree that the 2021 version applies here. 2 Although the six-page attachment is consecutively paginated "[#] of 6," it contains two separate sections under...

..."Statutory interpretation and standing also receive de novo review." Id. (first citing Therlonge v. State, 184 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); and then citing Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 160 So. 3d 131, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)). "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." Total Care Restoration, LLC v. Citizens Prop. Ins., 337 So. 3d 74, 75-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); see also ch. 2019-57, Laws of Fla. To that end, "[s]ection 627.7152 establishes mandatory requirements which an AOB must include to be enforceable." Air Quality Experts, 351 So....

...HOWEVER, YOU ARE OBLIGATED FOR PAYMENT OF ANY CONTRACTED WORK PERFORMED BEFORE THE AGREEMENT IS RESCINDED. THIS AGREEMENT DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR OBLIGATION TO PERFORM THE DUTIES REQUIRED UNDER YOUR PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY. § 627.7152(2)(a) (emphasis added). The statute expressly provides that an assignment that fails to comply with any of the provisions of subsection 627.7152(2) "is invalid and unenforceable." § 627.7152(2)(d); see also Air Quality Experts, 351 So....

...3d at 39 ("An assignee under a noncomplying AOB cannot enforce the contract because the Legislature has specifically stated that such contracts are invalid and unenforceable."). Here, even the full six-page document fails to include a provision containing all of the recission terms expressly required by section 627.7152(2)(a)2....

...Accordingly, under the plain language of subsection (2)(d), the AOB is "invalid and unenforceable." 4  It is undisputed that the document attached to the complaint contains the uppercase and boldfaced statement required by subsection 627.7152(2)(a)6. But that statement, by itself, does not include all of the terms expressly required under the parallel subsection 627.7152(2)(a)2. In particular, subsection (2)(a)2 requires a provision that allows recission "without a penalty or fee," whereas the required uppercase and boldfaced statement in subsection (2)(a)6 mentions a "penalty," but not a "fee."...

...2013) (rejecting plural interpretation of statute where plain language is unambiguously stated in the singular). Moreover, subsection (2)(a) contains parallel requirements addressing the substance of the AOB's terms versus their presentation, showing that the legislature knows the difference between the two. Compare, e.g., § 627.7152(2)(a)5 (requiring that the AOB "[r]elate only to" certain work), with §§ 627.7152(2)(a)2, 3, 6 4, 6, 7 (each requiring that the AOB "[c]ontain" a specified provision, a written estimate, or a notice). At bottom, nowhere in the document attached to the complaint is "a provision" that complies with all of the express requirements of subsection (2)(a)2. Thus, even considering all six pages as urged by Gale Force, the AOB is "invalid and unenforceable" under the plain language of the statute. § 627.7152(2)(d). Under this analysis, we do not reach the other deficiencies asserted by American Integrity. Because the AOB fails to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)2, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint, and we must affirm. Affirmed. LUCAS and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. __________________________ Opinion subject to revision prior to official...

...The Restoration Team (“TRT”), as assignee of Rick and Idalia Santos (“Santos”), appeals the trial court’s order dismissing its breach-of-contract lawsuit against Southern Oak Insurance Company. The dismissal was based on TRT’s failure to comply with section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2019)....

...TRT asserts that the trial court erroneously applied the statute retroactively, and that TRT was not required to comply with its provisions. TRT is incorrect and, for the reasons that follow, we affirm and hold that the trial court correctly applied section 627.7152 to the assignment of benefits agreement in this case, and that such application was prospective, not retroactive. FACTS AND BACKGROUND Santos owned a home that was insured against property damage by Southern Oak Insu...

...When 2 Southern Oak failed to pay, TRT filed the instant complaint, alleging breach of contract and seeking damages. Southern Oak moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the assignment was invalid under section 627.7152 because, inter alia, the assignment did not contain a “written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee,” section 627.7152(2)(a)(4), and because the assignment of benefits violated the $3,000 or 1% cap set forth in section 627.7152(2)(c). In response, TRT contended it was not required to comply with section 627.7152 because the statute did not exist when the insurance policy became effective on August 12, 2018, and, further, that the motion to dismiss improperly contained allegations outside the four corners of the complaint. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding section 627.7152 applied to the assignment of benefits, despite the effective date of the insurance policy, because the assignment of benefits was executed after the effective date of the statute. The court further found that because the assignment of benefits failed to comply with the requirements of section 627.7152, it was invalid and that this failure to comply was evident from the four corners of the complaint and its attachments....

...of Miami Master Ass’n, Inc., 253 So. 3d 715, 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting Bionetics Corp. v. Kenniasty, 69 So. 3d 943, 947 (Fla. 2011)). ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION In this appeal we must determine whether an assignment of benefits is subject to the requirements of section 627.7152 (entitled “Assignment agreements”) where it was executed after the statute’s effective date but the corresponding insurance policy was in force prior to the effective date of the statute. Section 627.7152 imposes certain requirements for an assignment of post-loss benefits under a property insurance policy in Florida, including, relevant to our discussion, that an assignment agreement must: Contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee. § 627.7152(2)(a)4. 4  In addition, subsection (2)(c) provides: (c) If an assignor acts under an urgent or emergency circumstance to protect property from damage and executes an assignm...

...emergency circumstance” means a situation in which a loss to property, if not addressed immediately, will result in additional damage until measures are completed to prevent such damage. Finally, subsection (13) provides the effective date: § 627.7152(2)(c) Finally, and most significant to our review, the Legislature provided, in the final subsection of the statute, express language regarding the statute’s effective date: (13) This section applies to an assignment agreement executed on or after July 1, 2019. § 627.7152(13) (emphasis added). Thus, by its express terms, the statute applies to the instant assignment of benefits: it is undisputed that the assignment was executed after the statute’s July 1, 2019, effective date. Nevertheles...

...ng in connection with that contract.” Id. at 876 (citations omitted). Menendez, however, is distinguishable, and does not support TRT’s position that the instant statute is being applied retroactively to the assignment of benefits. Section 627.7152 does not apply to an insurance agreement executed on or after July 1, 2019; rather it applies to an assignment agreement executed on or after July 1, 2019, without regard to when the underlying policy was executed....

...By contrast, TRT’s contractual rights did not come into existence until the assignment of benefits agreement was executed, some seven weeks after the statute’s effective date. The date on which the insured and insurer executed the underlying insurance policy is irrelevant here, because section 627.7152 (unlike the statute in Menendez) does not impose requirements upon an existing insurance policy, but rather imposes requirements upon an assignment of benefits agreement entered into between an assignor and assignee after the effective date of the statute. We reject TRT’s argument that, because it stands in the shoes of the insureds, it is the date of execution of the underlying insurance policy that governs. Section 627.7152 was not enacted to modify rights and duties as between the insured and insurer under a preexisting insurance policy; it was enacted “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). It must be kept in mind that the “agreement” addressed by section 627.7152 is not the insurance agreement between the insured and insurer, 7 but rather the post-loss assignment agreement between the insured/assignor and the third-party assignee....

...In that case, homeowners covered by an insurance policy sustained damage to their property following Hurricane Irma, and later assigned their post-loss benefits under that policy to their children. Although the insurance policy was in effect before the effective date of section 627.7152, the post-loss assignment agreement was executed three months after the statute’s July 1, 2019 effective date. The children-assignees later filed a breach of contract suit against the insurance company, and the insurance company moved to dismiss the suit, contending “the assignment was noncompliant because it omitted essential items [required by section 627.7152], including the assignees’ signatures, a 8 rescission provision, a cost estimate, an indemnification clause, a boilerplate statutory notice provision, and language confirming that the ass...

...before the statute’s effective date, would result in an unconstitutional impairment of contract in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.2 The trial court dismissed the case and this court affirmed, holding in relevant part that the portion of section 627.7152 at issue merely regulates the contents of any assignment agreement by requiring the contracting parties to include certain language....

...requires the inclusion of certain words, we conclude the statute solely “affect[s] rights under the assignment of benefits, not substantive rights under 1 Assignment agreements that fail to comply with the statutory requirements of section 627.7152 are “invalid and unenforceable.” § 627.7152(2)(d), Fla. Stat. 2 We note that no party to the instant appeal has raised the applicability of section 627.7153, Florida Statutes (2019)....

...from the instant case, has held: This case does not involve the application of a statute to a preexisting insurance policy; it concerns a statute's application to an assignment created after the effective date of the statute. Thus, section 627.7152—the law in effect at the time the assignment of benefits was executed—was properly applied to the assignment in this case. Total Care Restoration, 337 So. 3d at 77. As in Adjei, the application of section 627.7152 to the instant assignment agreement—executed after the statute’s effective date—does not constitute a retroactive application or unconstitutionally impair the parties’ right to contract. Instead, and as observed in Total Care, the application of section 627.7152 to the assignment agreement is prospective. We note that two other district courts have adopted this analysis. See Kidwell Grp, LLC v. Olympus Ins. Co., 346 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (aligning with the Fourth District’s decision in Total Care, holding that the trial court properly applied section 627.7152 prospectively to the assignment agreement, and that because the assignee failed to comply with section 10 627.7152 it never stepped into the insurer’s shoes); Kidwell Grp., LLC, 347 So....

...3 CONCLUSION Consistent with this court’s earlier decision in Adjei, as well as the related decisions of the Second, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal, we hold that the assignment of benefits agreement executed after July 1, 2019 was governed by section 627.7152 and did not constitute a retroactive application of the statute, even if the underlying insurance policy was in effect prior to July 1, 2019....

...As a result, because the assignment of benefits did not comply with the requirements of that statute, the trial court correctly 3 But see Procraft Exteriors, Inc. v. Metro. Cas. Ins. Co., 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D71, 2020 WL 5943845 (M.D. Fla. May 13, 2020) (holding section 627.7152 did not apply to an AOB issued after July 1, 2019 because the version of the statute in effect when the insurance policy was issued is the version that applies)....

...itute the following in its place. An assignee under a homeowners’ property insurance assignment of benefits appeals a final order of dismissal in favor of the insurer. The judgment determined that the assignment of benefits did not comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2020), rendering it “invalid and unenforceable” under the statute....

...not a party to the contract. We affirm, concluding that this assignment did not comply with the statutory provision, because it failed to “[c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee[.]” Section 627.7152(2)(a)4....

...When the insurer did not pay the bills, the assignee filed suit, attaching the AOB contract and the two invoices to its statement of claim. Insurer then filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice arguing among other things that appellant failed to allege compliance with section 627.7152....

...assertion that it was entitled to an equitable assignment of benefits. Insurer filed a motion to dismiss the amended statement of claim with prejudice. Insurer argued that the amended statement of claim on its face failed to meet the requirements of section 627.7152(2)(a)4., which provides: “[a]n assignment agreement must . . . [c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee.” (Emphasis added). Insurer further argued that lack of compliance prevented enforcement of the assignment, citing section 627.7152(2)(d), which states: “[a]n assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable.” Insurer maintained that the price lists attached to the AOB did not satisfy the provisions of the statute. Therefore, it argued that the assignment was “invalid and unenforceable” pursuant to section 627.7152(2)(d)....

...ist in the assignment was sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. In addition, assignee argued that insurer did not have the authority to challenge the validity of the assignment on two bases: (1) if the assignment is invalid pursuant to section 627.7152(2)(a)4....

...mate of services to be performed; rather, it listed what services could be performed. The court also found that the insurer could raise the invalidity of the assignment despite a lack of privity between the parties because of the mandatory nature of section 627.7152’s requirements, the absence of 3 which made the assignment invalid....

...4th DCA 2021). Statutory interpretation and standing also receive de novo review. Therlonge v. State, 184 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (statutory interpretation); Matthews v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 160 So. 3d 131, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standing). Violation of Section 627.7152(2)(a)4. The trial court found that paragraph 9 of the assignment detailing a price listing for services that “could be performed, absent some indicator of what services actually are estimated to be performed,” did not comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4....

...controls when its language is inconsistent with the complaint’s allegations.”); Kidwell Grp., LLC v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 343 So. 3d 97, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (same). Thus, we must look at the AOB itself to determine whether it complies with the statute. Section 627.7152 establishes mandatory requirements which an AOB must include to be enforceable. One of those requirements at issue here is that it must “[c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee.” § 627.7152(2)(a)4....

...3d at 97. Attached to the AOB in this case was not a list of itemized services to be performed. Instead, a standard price list of the types of services offered by the assignee with their unit price was attached. A “price list” is plainly not a “written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate.” See § 627.7152(2)(a)4. There was nothing in the attachment which tied the price list to the insured’s home so that it could be considered an estimate....

...services, or, as it is identified by assignee, a “price list” of work or services that could be performed. Accordingly, the trial court correctly found, looking at only the four corners of the amended claim and its exhibits, that the AOB violated section 627.7152(2)(a)4. Standing The assignee claims, however, that even if the AOB violated the statutory provisions, the insurer has no standing to contest its invalidity. “Standing is a legal concept that...

...The insurer turns the standing issue around to state that it is the assignee who lacks standing 5 to sue, because it cannot as a matter of law enforce an assignment violative of the statute. We agree with the insurer. Section 627.7152(2)(d) provides that an assignment which does not comply with the terms of the statute is “invalid and unenforceable.” Because the assignment failed to comply with the statute, it is invalid. Therefore, the assignee cannot attempt...

...the assignee’s lack of standing because of its invalidity. Id. at 627. In this case, the Legislature specifically provided that the penalty for failure to comply with the statutory provisions was the invalidity and unenforceability of the AOB. See § 627.7152(2)(d). Consistent with Gables, this AOB is unenforceable in this action. The assignee cites to a federal district court case that denied a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by an assignee under an AOB that did not comply with the provisions of section 627.7152(2)....

...at 1335. Lugassy did not involve a contract that the statute declares invalid. See Park, 547 So. 2d at 215. Here the statute expressly declares an assignment violative of its requirements is “invalid and unenforceable”, precluding its enforcement by courts. § 627.7152(2)(d)....

...rty to establish the right to maintain an action retroactively by acquiring standing to file a lawsuit after the fact.”). Conclusion 7  An AOB contract must comply with section 627.7152 to be enforceable. Where an AOB contains only a general price list and not an estimate of the services to be performed, it does not comply with the statute....

... Appellant Advance Mold Services, Inc. d/b/a Ocean Coast Restoration, as assignee of Glenn Franklyn, appeals from a final order dismissing its breach of contract action against Appellee Universal North America Insurance Company. The trial court dismissed pursuant to § 627.7152(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2023), which prohibits assignment agreements from containing certain fees, including an administrative fee....

...According to the allegations in the Complaint, Advance Mold provided mold remediation services, and Universal failed to pay. Advance Mold sued Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss arguing that Advance Mold’s Assignment Agreement was invalid pursuant to § 627.7152(2)(b), which provides that “[a]n assignment agreement may not contain ....

...ny factual issues.” Chodorow v. Porto Vita, Ltd., 954 So. 2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1199 (Fla. 2006)). We therefore reverse the dismissal and remand for the trial court to consider 1 Section 627.7152(2)(a)(5) requires assignment agreements to “[c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee.” 3 whether the fee is in fact an administrative fee prohibited by § 627.7152(2)(b). Reversed and remanded. 4 

finding that an invoice failed to satisfy section 627.7152(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), because the

...Case No. 502020CC007812XXXXMB. Robin F. Hazel of Hazel Law, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant. Angela C. Flowers of Kubicki Draper, Ocala, for appellee. GROSS, J. This case involves an assignment of insurance benefits subject to the requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...omplaint 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: 13....

...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: 3  An assignment agreement must: *** 3....

...within 3 business days after the date on which the assignment agreement is executed or the date on which work begins, whichever is earlier. . . . 4. Contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee. § 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: In a claim aris...

...not prejudiced by the assignee’s failure to: *** (d) Deliver a copy of the executed assignment agreement to the insurer within 3 business days after executing the assignment agreement or work has begun, whichever is earlier. § 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....

...ction exists that gives effect to all words.” State v. Bodden, 877 So. 2d 680, 686 (Fla. 2004). In lawsuits based on assignments, we have recognized an insurer’s right to avoid liability by demonstrating the assignment’s noncompliance with section 627.7152 or another insurance statute. See, e.g., The Kidwell Grp., LLC v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1295 (Fla. 4th DCA June 15, 2022) (affirming dismissal of complaint with prejudice where assignment failed to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4.); QBE Specialty Ins....

...denying the allegations of compliance with specificity.’” Goodman v. Martin Cnty. Health Dep’t, 786 So. 2d 661, 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Fla. Med. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 511 So. 2d 677, 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). Section 627.7152(2)(d) makes compliance with subsection (2) a necessary condition precedent to enforcing an assignment. NCF 1 We do not reach the issue of whether the assignment at issue complied with section 627.7152(2)(a)4....

...The second basis for reversal is that nothing on the face of the second amended complaint shows that Security was prejudiced by NCF’s failure, if any, to comply with the three-day notice requirements of the statute. A showing of prejudice is required by section 627.7152(3). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing...

...2d DCA 2024) (affirming dismissal of complaint filed by insured’s assignee because the assignment of benefits attached to the complaint failed to satisfy the requirements of section 627.7125, Florida Statutes (2021), finding the subject agreement invalid and unenforceable pursuant to section 627.7152(2)(d), noting it was “undisputed that the document attached to the complaint contains the uppercase and boldfaced statement required by subsection 627.7152(2)(a)6. But that statement, by itself, does not include all of the terms expressly required under the parallel subsection 627.7152(2)(a)2....

...the express requirements of subsection (2)(a)2.”); Kidwell Grp., LLC v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 343 So. 3d 97, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (affirming dismissal of complaint filed by insured’s assignee because the assignment of benefits failed to comply with sections 627.7152(2)(a)1 and 627.7152(2)(a)4); Casto v....

...The Insurer successfully moved to dismiss Sigma’s complaint, arguing, in relevant part, that Sigma cannot state a claim for breach of contract because the assignment is invalid. Specifically, the Insurer argued that the AOB executed by the Insureds failed to comply with section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2019), which requires certain post-loss claim assignments to include specific information. Of import, both parties agree that the AOB lacked the specific information required by section 627.7152. They disagree, however, on whether that section applies. Section 627.7152 applies only to “[a]ssignment agreements,” which, at the time the assignment occurred, were defined as: [A]ny instrument by which post-loss benefits under a residential property insurance policy or commercial property insurance policy, as that term is defined in s....

...627.0625(1), are assigned or transferred, or acquired in any manner, in whole or in part, to or from a person providing services to protect, repair, restore, or 2  replace property or to mitigate against further damage to the property.” § 627.7152(1)(b), Fla....

...Stat.1 Sigma alleged in the complaint that it did not provide any services to protect, repair, restore, or replace property or to mitigate against further damage to the property. Thus, it argued that the AOB is not an assignment agreement under section 627.7152 and, therefore, not required to comply with its dictates. In determining whether section 627.7152 applies to Sigma, the trial court is limited to the four corners of the complaint and its attachments, accepting all well-pled allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the plaintiff....

...thereto (the policy and the AOB) indicate the purpose behind Sigma’s payment or the use of the funds by the Insureds. The Insurer speculates that the funds were likely used to repair the property, in which case it argues the AOB at issue would be governed by section 627.7152....

...insurance policy, sued appellee insurance company for breach of contract in failing to pay for mold remediation services incurred in connection with a covered loss. Insurer moved to dismiss, arguing that the assignment of benefits failed to comply with the requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...section 627.7153, Florida Statutes (2020). Section 627.7153 permits an insurance policy to prohibit the assignment of benefits if the insurer complies with the provisions of the statute. Appellant maintains that in order for the insurer to challenge the assignment based on section 627.7152, the insurer would have had to incorporate the requirements of that section into its policy....

...This argument is without merit. In this case, the insurance policy did not prohibit the assignment of benefits. Therefore, section 627.7153 is inapplicable. However, the assignment of benefits contract in this case was invalid for failure to comply with section 627.7152....

...50 from appellee, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The trial court dismissed the claim on the basis that the assignment of benefits appended to the claim failed to contain an “itemized, per-unit cost estimate,” as required pursuant to section 627.7152(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2021) (amended 2022)....

...L.T. Case No. COCE-19- 023855. Michael D. Redondo of Redondo Law P.A., Miami, for appellant. Maureen G. Pearcy of Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., Miami, for appellee. GROSS, J. We address the question of whether the 10-day notice requirement of section 627.7152(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), applies to an assignment of insurance benefits executed after the effective date of the statute, even where the underlying policy was issued before that effective date....

...policy was issued prior to the enactment of the statute in question. Citizens moved for summary judgment, which the trial judge granted. The court observed that the legislature made clear that the new statutory requirements for assignments of benefits under section 627.7152 applied to all assignments executed on or after July 1, 2019. Discussion Section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, 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. 1 The statute provides that it applies to assignment agreements “executed on or after July 1, 2019.” § 627.7152(13), Fla. Stat. (2019). Significant to this case, subsection 627.7152(9)(a) provides: An assignee must provide the named insured, insurer, and the assignor, if not the named insured, with a written notice of intent to initiate litigation before filing suit under the policy....

...of benefits]” and “[t]ransferring certain pre-lawsuit duties under the insurance contract to the assignee,” among other things. See Fla. H.R. Subcomm. on Civ. Just., CS/CS/HB 7065 (2019), Final Staff Analysis (May 28, 2019). 2 § 627.7152(9)(a), Fla....

...(2019) (emphasis supplied). Contrary to Total Care’s argument, the statute was not applied retroactively—the trial court applied it to an assignment executed after the effective date of the statute. The assignment itself tracks verbatim much of the statutory language contained in section 627.7152, evidencing the parties’ acknowledgement of the statute’s application to the July 16, 2019 assignment of benefits. Total Care acquired no interest in the claim until the assignment was executed....

...Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996)). This case does not involve the application of a statute to a preexisting insurance policy; it concerns a statute’s application to an assignment created after the effective date of the statute. Thus, section 627.7152— the law in effect at the time the assignment of benefits was executed—was properly applied to the assignment in this case. 2Although this Court recently relied on Menendez in Water Damage Express, LLC v....

...Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, No. 19-CV-81696, 2020 WL 264673 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2020), but those cases do not control. The two cases do not mention whether the assignments there at issue were executed after the effective date contained in section 627.7152(13) or whether the assignments referenced and tracked the statute. Because we hold that section 627.7152(9)(a) was not retroactively applied to the assignment, we do not reach the question of whether the statute is procedural or substantive....

...order on cross-appeal denying attorney fees. In both complaints, Restoration alleged the right to seek payment from Insurer under assignments from the insured homeowner. Restoration’s first complaint failed to attach an itemized list of services and prices as section 627.7152(2) required, although Restoration asserted that such a detailed document existed and had been sent to Insurer....

...23-2809 because of the date on the document footer of the cost estimate, and its lack of signatures. The statute requires that an assignment agreement itself must be executed (and this one was), but does not require that the cost estimate be executed. See § 627.7152(2)(a)(1), (4), Fla....

...order on cross-appeal denying attorney fees. In both complaints, Restoration alleged the right to seek payment from Insurer under assignments from the insured homeowner. Restoration’s first complaint failed to attach an itemized list of services and prices as section 627.7152(2) required, although Restoration asserted that such a detailed document existed and had been sent to Insurer....

...23-2809 because of the date on the document footer of the cost estimate, and its lack of signatures. The statute requires that an assignment agreement itself must be executed (and this one was), but does not require that the cost estimate be executed. See § 627.7152(2)(a)(1), (4), Fla....