Alexander Appellate Law Secures Victory for Homeowners in Miami Appeal

Alexander Appellate Law P.A. recently secured a victory for their clients in Miami. After briefing and oral argument, the Third District Court of Appeal agreed that an anti-assignment provision contained in a homeowners insurance policy application was unenforceable.

After the insureds’ home in Miami was damaged, they assigned their insurance policy benefits to Extreme Emergency Fire and Water Restoration, who then performed repair and mitigation services. When Extreme Emergency requested payment from the insurer, Lloyd’s of London, the insurer refused to pay, citing an anti-assignment provision contained in the insurance policy application. After Extreme Emergency sued, the trial court agreed that the assignment was invalid and that Extreme Emergency was not entitled to the insurance policy benefits.

On appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal from the Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Alexander Appellate Law P.A. argued that the provision was contrary to nearly 100 years of Florida precedent finding anti-assignment provisions in insurance policies unenforceable as a matter of public interest. Lloyd’s argued that this precedent was distinguishable because in this case the clause was negotiated prior to entering into the insurance contract.

The Third District Court of Appeal agreed with our argument that the insurance application merges into the insurance policy contract, so that an anti-assignment clause in the application is just as unenforceable as an anti-assignment clause in the policy.

This is a victory not just for the firm’s clients in Miami, but for homeowners throughout the State of Florida: there are potentially thousands of similar clauses in other applications for policies that are now unenforceable in Florida as a matter of law.

You can read the written opinion here: Extreme Emergency Fire and Water Restoration v. Certain Underwriter’s at Lloyd’s of London, 3D20-0005 (Dec. 16, 2020)

The decision has been covered in the insurance press: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2021/01/05/595987.htm

And here is the oral argument: