This week, after 7 years of failed efforts, the Florida Legislature passed a meaningful Assignment of Benefits (“AOB”) reform bill. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced yesterday that he would sign the legislation designed to cut back on abusive AOBs, a practice that has plagued the hurricane-prone state. In recent years, many contractors have taken advantage of Florida’s unique one-way attorney’s fee shifting statute for insurance coverage litigation. This rule has incentivized contractors to, via the assignment of benefits mechanism, charge property owners outlandish amounts and to then pursue needless, sometimes frivolous, and always expensive litigation against insurance companies.
Florida H.B. 7065, expected to take effect July 1, 2019, makes several key statutory changes designed to curb AOB practices. We discuss a few of those highlights here.
The bill establishes several new sections of the Florida Statutes, including Fla. Stat. § 627.7152. § 627.7152(2)(a) sets requirements for a proper assignment of benefits:
627.7152 Assignment agreements.—
(2)(a) An assignment agreement must:
1) Be in writing and executed by and between the assignor and the assignee.
2) Contain a provision that allows the assignor to rescind the assignment agreement without a penalty or fee by submitting a written notice of rescission signed by the assignor to the assignee within 14 days after the execution of the agreement, at least 30 days after the date work on the property is scheduled to commence 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.
3) Contain a provision requiring the assignee to provide a copy of the executed assignment agreement to the insurer 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. . . .
Under § 627.7152(2)(a), contractors will no longer be able to blindside their customers and insurers with exorbitant bills with the expectation that an insurance company will eventually pay it. Now, contractors will be required to provide detailed estimates in advance of performing the work in order to effectively obtain an assignment of insurance benefits. Further, the assignee must promptly notify the insurer of the assignment. Insurers will now be able to monitor costs as they are incurred and ensure contractors are not performing unnecessary repairs.
In the event of litigation, § 627.7152(3) addresses the burden of the assignee:
(3) In a claim arising under an assignment agreement, an assignee has the burden to demonstrate that the insurer is not prejudiced by the assignee’s failure to:
(a) Maintain records of all services provided under the assignment agreement.
(b) Cooperate with the insurer in the claim investigation.
(c) Provide the insurer with requested records and documents related to the services provided, and permit the insurer to make copies of such records and documents.
(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.
Like a policyholder, assignees must cooperate with the insurer. If an assignee fails to maintain records, provide the insurer requested documents, or deliver the agreement as required by § 627.7152(2)(a), the assignee will bear the burden in litigation of demonstrating a lack of prejudice to the insurer.
In order to even get into a courtroom, however, § 627.7152(9)(a) requires assignees to serve written notice at least 10 business days prior to filing suit. The notice must include, among other things, the amount of damages in dispute, the amount claimed, and a pre-suit settlement demand. The assignee must also provide a detailed written invoice or estimate of services, the number of labor hours, and in the case of work performed, proof that the work has been performed in accordance with “accepted industry standards.” Upon receipt of the notice,
(b) An insurer must respond in writing to the notice within 10 business days after receiving the notice specified in paragraph (a) by making a presuit settlement offer or requiring the assignee to participate in appraisal or other method of alternative dispute resolution under the policy. An insurer must have a procedure for the prompt investigation, review, and evaluation of the dispute stated in the notice and must investigate each claim contained in the notice in accordance with the Florida Insurance Code.
Insurers have an opportunity to avoid litigation through negotiation or appraisal. Assignees are encouraged to make reasonable settlement demands and to consider reasonable offers because failure to do so can trigger an award of attorney’s fees in the insurer’s favor:
(10) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a suit related to an assignment agreement for post-loss claims arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy, attorney fees and costs may be recovered by an assignee only under s. 57.105 and this subsection.
(a) If the difference between the judgment obtained by the assignee and the presuit settlement offer is:
1) Less than 25 percent of the disputed amount, the insurer is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees.
2) At least 25 percent but less than 50 percent of the disputed amount, no party is entitled to an award of attorney fees.
3) At least 50 percent of the disputed amount, the assignee is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees.
Fla. Stat. § 627.428 is the one way attorney’s fee shifting statute in Florida’s insurance code. This statute generously provides fee-shifting to “prevailing” policyholders and claimants, including following negotiated settlements in contravention of the general American rule. Under the new AOB statute, § 627.7152(10), awards of attorney’s fees are discretionary in suits against insurers by assignees. Further, § 627.7152(10) requires assignees to obtain a judgment of an amount at least 50% greater than the insurer’s pre-suit settlement offer in order to obtain an award of attorney’s fees. For additional encouragement to accept reasonable settlement offers, assignees who fail to obtain a judgment at least 25% greater may be required to pay the insurer’s attorney’s fees.
Last, insurers can avoid “assignment of benefits” issues altogether by prohibiting AOBs in their policies. The bill creates a new § 627.7153, which allows “[a]n insurer may make available a policy that restricts in whole or in part an insured’s right to execute an assignment agreement” if certain conditions are met. Those conditions include that the insurer must also provide unrestricted coverage, the restricted policy is available at a lower cost than the unrestricted policy, policies prohibiting assignment in whole cost less than policies prohibiting assignment in part, and restricted policies must contain notice on its face.
With the passage of this new law, Florida will see a new litigation landscape in the area of assignment of benefits. The law is prospective only, so it will not technically impact existing AOB litigation. However, through passage of this law, Florida has disincentivized unscrupulous contractors and leveled the courtroom playing field and the presently rampant AOB litigation should begin to fade. Ultimately, these changes are expected to benefit Florida policyholders with reduced insurance premiums.
