Assignment of benefits is one of the hottest topics in Florida first party property insurance and it’s no secret that insurance carriers are not in favor of AOBs. Some insurance carriers, like Security First Insurance Company, tried to take matters into their own hands and add language into their homeowners, condominium unit owners and “dwelling fire” policies that would require the “insureds, additional insureds and mortgagees” named on a policy to consent to any post-loss assignment of benefits to a third party.

The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation rejected Security First’s proposed amendment based on Florida law prohibiting such restrictions on a policyholder’s post-loss assignment of benefits. Security First argued that Florida law only bars policy language requiring the insurance company’s consent for an assignment of benefits, not consent by the insured.

On Friday, December 1, 2017, a three-judge appellate panel of the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Office of Insurance Regulation Commissioner’s order rejecting the amendment.

The case is Security First Insurance Co. v. Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, case number 5D16-3425 (Fla. 5th DCA  Dec. 1, 2017).

  • JJ

    I suppose there could be a good reason for an Assignment of Benefits
    handling of a claim, the one that I have come across are done solely to to milk
    the insurance benefits. Also, these have been bad for not only the
    policyholder who assigned the benefits, but are especially bad for all
    policyholders in a state where premiums are already very high.