EMERGENCY SERVICES 24, INC. A/A/O JAY MEISELMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., 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.
Emergency Services 24 appealed a summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract claim against United Property & Casualty Insurance Company regarding an alleged assignment of homeowner's policy rights. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that an anti-assignment clause and loss payment provision do not preclude assignment, but remanded for the trial court to address other potential assignment challenges.
The anti-assignment clause and loss payment provision do not preclude assignment of the insured's contractual rights. The summary judgment in favor of the insurer is reversed and remanded for the trial court to address in the first instance other potential challenges to the assignment, such as whether it violates public adjuster statutes or insurable interest requirements, or whether it constitutes an unenforceable partial assignment.
[1] An anti-assignment clause and a loss payment provision in a homeowner's insurance policy may not preclude a post-loss assignment of rights.
[2] An appellate court should not decide issues not ruled on by the trial court in the first instance.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because the trial court erred in finding that the anti-assignment clause and the loss payment provision precluded the assignment, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
The court's holding that the anti-assignment clause and loss payment provision do not prevent assignment of the insured's contractual rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEmergency Services 24 (ES24) claimed to be an assignee of rights under a homeowner's insurance policy issued by United Property & Casualty Insurance C…
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 Anti-Assignment Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
In Case Number 4D14-576, appellant, Emergency Services 24 (“ES24”), as an alleged assignee of the insured under a homeowner’s policy, appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of United Property and Casualty Insurance Company in ES24’s lawsuit for breach of contract. Because the trial court erred in finding that the anti-assignment clause and the loss payment provision precluded the assignment, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., No. 4D14-424, 165 So.3d 749, 2015 WL 2393353 (Fla. 4th DCA May 20, 2015).
We emphasize, however, that we decline to reach any of the insurer’s other challenges to the assignment, including whether the assignment violates the public adjuster statute or the statute governing insurable interests,1 or whether the assignment is a partial assignment that cannot be enforced against the insurer *757without its consent. The trial court should address these issues in the first instance. See Stark v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So.3d 285, 289 n. 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (declining to apply the tipsy coachman doctrine and explaining that an appellate court should not ordinarily decide issues not ruled on by the trial court in the first instance).
In Case Number 4D14-3320, the insurer appeals a final order denying its motion for attorney’s fees on the ground that its proposal for settlement was invalid. Because we are reversing the summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the question of whether the insurer is entitled to attorney’s fees is premature. We therefore reverse and vacate the order denying attorney’s fees without expressing any opinion as to the validity of the proposal for settlement.
Reversed and Remanded.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
JBJ Inv. OF S. Fla., Inc. v. S. Title Grp., Inc., 251 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…nts, we vacate the order denying the Burgess Defendants' motion for attorney's fees. We do not express any opinion as to the validity of the Burgess Defendants' proposal for settlement. See Emergency Servs. 24, Inc. v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 165 So. 3d 756, 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ("Because we are reversing the summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the question of whether the insurer is entitled to attorney's fees is premature. We therefore reverse and vacate the order denying attorney's fees with…
-
Berkley Ins. Co. v. Banc of Am. Cmty. Dev. Co., LLC, 386 So. 3d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…upon the partial final judgment. Our reversal in part of that judgment necessitates vacatur of the fee order as premature. We therefore remand for the trial court to vacate the fee order. See Emergency Servs. 24, Inc. v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins., 165 So. 3d 756, 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ("Because we are reversing the summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the question of whether the insurer is entitled to attorney's fees is premature. We therefore reverse and vacate the order denying attorney's fees wi…
-
Banc of Am. Cmty. Dev. Co., LLC v. Berkley Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…upon the partial final judgment. Our reversal in part of that judgment necessitates vacatur of the fee order as premature. We therefore remand for the trial court to vacate the fee order. See Emergency Servs. 24, Inc. v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins., 165 So. 3d 756, 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ("Because we are reversing the summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the question of whether the insurer is entitled to attorney's fees is premature. We therefore reverse and vacate the order denying attorney's fees wi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- ONE Call Prop. Servs. Inc. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 165 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Stark v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)