Restoration 1 CFL v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Restoration 1 CFL v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.

189 So. 3d 340, 2016 WL 1600331, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6145

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 2016

Docket5D15-1049

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 So. 3d 340 (Restoration 1 CFL v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Restoration 1 CFL v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 189 So. 3d 340, 2016 WL 1600331, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6145 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Restoration 1 CFL (“Restoration”), a/a/o I. Joy White (“White”), appeals the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment on behalf of State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”). State Farm contends that the assignment of benefits from White to Restoration transferred the right to collect benefits but not the right to participate in a suit to determine coverage under the policy regarding those benefits. The trial court determined that the assignment was not valid because White intended to retain control of her rights, basing its conclusion largely upon statements made by White during a deposition. For the following reasons, we reverse.

First, we conclude that the assignment of benefits from White to Restoration is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it was error to allow introduction of extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of the agreement. See, e.g., King v. Bray, 867 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“[T]he party seeking to introduce parol evidence must establish that the document is ambiguous and in need of interpretation.”). Accordingly, White’s deposition testimony regarding her interpretation of the assignment should not have been considered by the trial court.

We further conclude that the assignment of insurance benefits transferred to the assignee, Restoration, standing to litigate the coverage issue raised by State Farm when it denied the claim. See Bioscience W., Inc. v. Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 185 So.3d 638, 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); United Water Restoration Grp., Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 173 So.3d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Because Restoration had standing to participate in the suit to determine coverage under the policy for the benefits assigned, it was error for the trial court to grant State Farm’s motion for summary judgment. We therefore reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Restoration 1 CFL (“Restoration”), a/a/o I. Joy White (“White”), appeals the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment on behalf of State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”). State Farm contends that the assignment of benefits from White to Restoration transferred the right to collect benefits but not the right to participate in a suit to determine coverage under the policy regarding those benefits. The trial court determined that the assignment was not valid because White intended to retain control of her rights, basing its conclusion largely upon statements made by White during a deposition. For the following reasons, we reverse.

First, we conclude that the assignment of benefits from White to Restoration is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it was error to allow introduction of extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of the agreement. See, e.g., King v. Bray, 867 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“[T]he party seeking to introduce parol evidence must establish that the document is ambiguous and in need of interpretation.”). Accordingly, White’s deposition testimony regarding her interpretation of the assignment should not have been considered by the trial court.

We further conclude that the assignment of insurance benefits transferred to the assignee, Restoration, standing to litigate the coverage issue raised by State Farm when it denied the claim. See Bioscience W., Inc. v. Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 185 So.3d 638, 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); United Water Restoration Grp., Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 173 So.3d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Because Restoration had standing to participate in the suit to determine coverage under the policy for the benefits assigned, it was error for the trial court to grant State Farm’s motion for summary judgment. We therefore reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 So. 3d 340, 2016 WL 1600331, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/restoration-1-cfl-v-state-farm-florida-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack