UNITED COMPANIES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND LILLIE MARIE GOODE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM AND FIRE CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
United Companies Life Insurance Company and Goode appealed the dismissal of their complaint against State Farm for refusing to pay personal property insurance proceeds. The court held that while United Companies could not recover as an unnamed chattel mortgagee, it could pursue recovery as an assignee of Goode's policy interest, and reversed the dismissal in part.
United Companies could not state a cause of action as an unnamed chattel mortgagee but could pursue recovery as an assignee of Goode's interest in the policy, as insurance claims constitute choses in action that are assignable and may be sued upon by the assignee.
[1] A party cannot recover under an insurance policy's mortgagee provision if it is not named in the policy as a mortgagee.
[2] A claim on an insurance policy constitutes a chose in action that is assignable.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court was correct in ruling that United Companies did not state a cause of action as a chattel mortgagee because it was not named in the policy as a chattel mortgagee. However, a cause of action was stated in that count alleging the assignment by Goode of her interest in the policy to United Companies.”
Establishes the distinction between the two theories of recovery and why one fails while the other succeeds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoode borrowed funds from United Companies Financial Corporation, securing the loan with a second mortgage on her home and a chattel mortgage on her f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Chose In Action cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
United Companies Life Insurance Company and Goode appeal from an order dismissing their third amended complaint against State Farm and Fire Casualty Company for failure to state a cause of action. They contend the trial court erred. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Goode borrowed funds from United Companies Financial Corporation. As security for the loan, Financial Corporation received a second mortgage on Goode’s home and a chattel mortgage on the furnishings inside her home. However, due to an alleged scrivenor’s error, Financial Corporation was not named in the chattel mortgage. In 1979, both mortgages were allegedly orally assigned to United Companies Life Insurance Company.
Pursuant to the terms of the loan transaction, Goode purchased a fire insurance policy from State Farm which covered the real and personal property. The property, both real and personal, was destroyed by fire on 21 April 1981. Following this, in May of 1982 United Companies obtained a written assignment of the mortgages.
Goode defaulted on the loan agreement and United Companies made a claim against State Farm under the mortgagee provision of Goode’s policy. State Farm paid United Companies on the coverage for real property but refused to pay for any personal property loss because it was not named as a loss payee under this policy coverage. As a result, United Companies commenced the present action. It joined Goode as a plaintiff in its third amended complaint based on Goode’s written assignment of her interest in the policy to United Companies.
The trial court was correct in ruling that United Companies did not state a cause of action as a chattel mortgagee because it was not named in the policy as a chattel mortgagee. However, a cause of action was stated in that count alleging the assignment by Goode of her interest in the policy to United Companies.
United Companies acquired through Goode’s assignment a “chose in action.” Choses in action arising out of contract are assignable and may be sued upon and recovered by the assignee in his own name and right. A claim on an insurance policy is a chose in action as is assignable as such. Selfridge v. Allstate Insurance Co., 219 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ONE Call Prop. Servs. Inc. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 165 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…*753] own name and right.” Spears v. W. Coast Builders’ Supply Co., 101 Fla. 980, 983, 133 So. 97, 98 (1931). “A claim on an insurance policy is a chose in action and is assignable as such.” United Cos. Life Ins. Co. v. State Farm and Fire Cas. Co., 477 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Where there is no provision forbidding assignment, “an insurance policy may be assigned as any other chose in action.” Kohl v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 955 So. 2d 1140, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Even when an…
-
W.S. Badcock Corp. v. Webb, 699 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ders’ Supply Co., 101 Fla. 980, 133 So. 97 (1931) (choses in action arising out of contract are assignable and may be sued upon and recovered by the assignee in his own name and right); United Companies Life Ins. Co. v. State Farm and Fire Cas. Co., 477 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In fact, assignability of a cause of action is the rule rather than the exception. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.; Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), rev. denied, 659 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1995) (pa…
-
Webb Roofing & Constr., LLC v. Fednat Ins. Co., 320 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…s are freely assignable without the consent of the insurer"); One Call Prop. Servs., 165 So. 3d at 752-53 ("A claim on an insurance policy is a chose in action and is assignable as such." (quoting United Cos. Life Ins. v. State Farm & Fire Cas. Co., 477 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985))). We next address whether Webb Roofing as a post-loss assignee may avoid compliance with the contractual appraisal provision contained in the policy.2 2Applicable to assignment agreements executed on or after July 1, 2019,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Selfridge v. Allstate Ins. Co., 219 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Weiss, 219 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)