DAMAGE SERVICES, INC. A/A/O GNH REAL ESTATE
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation sought summary judgment against Damage Services, Inc. (DSI), an assignee of benefits, for breach of contract related to water extraction services following a flooding event. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Citizens, holding that DSI failed to comply with policy requirements to request and obtain prior approval before exceeding the $3,000 emergency measures coverage limit under Coverage G4.
The court affirmed summary judgment for Citizens, holding that DSI's failure to request prior approval before exceeding the $3,000 emergency measures limit bars recovery under Coverage G4, and that DSI has no right to recover under Coverage A because it was assigned only rights for water extraction and related services, not general property damage repairs.
[1] An assignee of insurance benefits is limited to those rights expressly assigned in the assignment agreement and cannot recover under policy provisions not included in the…
[2] A policy provision establishing a reimbursement cap for emergency measures requires the insured or its assignee to request prior approval from the insurer before exceedin…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 clear wording of the policy established a reimbursement cap on expenses for emergency measures which could not be exceeded without a request to, and prior approval from, the insurer.”
Court's reasoning citing Certified Priority Restoration v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp. regarding the same policy provision.
A flooding event occurred at a Citizens-insured property, and DSI provided water extraction services. The insured's policy contained Coverage G4, whic…
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 Assignment Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm a final summary judgment in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”) and against Damage Services, Inc. (“DSI”), an assignee of benefits from an insured of Citizens.
DSI sued Citizens for breach of contract for failing to pay DSI for its water extraction services due to a flooding event at Citizens’ insured’s property. The insured’s policy provided in Coverage G4 that it would not pay more than $3,000 for emergency measures to protect the property, unless a request to exceed the amount was made and approval was given by Citizens. DSI failed to make a request to exceed that limit in accordance with the policy terms.
In Certified Priority Restoration v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., --- So. 3d ----, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1546, 2021 WL 2673368 (Fla. 4th DCA June 30, 2021), we addressed the same policy provision for this insurer and held that “the clear wording of the policy established a reimbursement cap on expenses for emergency measures which could not be exceeded without a request to, and prior approval from, the insurer.” Because DSI did not make a request to exceed the policy limit prior to exceeding the limit for the work performed, we affirm.
DSI alternatively argues that it could recover under Coverage A of the policy, which insures against direct loss to the property, because its invoice was for water extraction and remediation. It argues that remediation can be for improvement to the property and thus not within the emergency measure policy provisions.
However, we conclude that the court did not err in rejecting DSI’s claim. DSI’s complaint described its work as “water extraction” and not as any type of repair. No affidavit was filed by DSI to show that it had performed work other than water extraction. Most importantly, in the assignment of benefits contract, the insured assigned to DSI only its right to payment “in regards to water extraction and dry out services, mold remediation, and/or smoke damage.” To the extent that DSI performed other services, it was not assigned the right to collect payments from Citizens for that work, including any work done under Coverage A. Repayment for the damage to the property under Coverage A, if any, would be made to the insured, not DSI.
For these reasons, we affirm the final summary judgment on these grounds. We affirm as to all other issues raised.
Affirmed. WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Damage Servs., Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
-
ALL Ins. Restoration Serv., Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 328 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Damage Servs., Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)