Well Done Mitigation, LLC a/a/o Lazaro Ramirez Escalona v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., Fla. 2nd DCA, No. 2D2024-1259, June 27, 2025
In this appeal, Well Done Mitigation, LLC, as an assignee of Lazaro Escalona, challenged the final judgment entered in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation on the basis that the trial court erred in granting a dismissal. The trial court had granted the dismissal because it determined the assignment of benefits was invalid under Fla. Stat. § 627.7152(7)(b) and, thus, unenforceable.
On September 27, 2022, Escalona suffered wind-related damage to his property. Approximately a month after the loss, he entered into an assignment agreement with Well Done Mitigation, assigning his insurance benefits to them in exchange for water dryout services. The agreement included a payment terms section that was in dispute as to its validity as well as a severance clause, which stated: “[t]he invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement will not affect the validity or enforceability of any of the other provisions of this Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect.”
The trial court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice on the basis that the assignment agreement was invalid and not in compliance with Fla. Stat. § 627.7152(7)(a) as it included a client agreement to pay “depreciation or additional work.”
On appeal, Well Done Mitigation argued that the “assignment agreement did not violate subsections (7)(a) and (7)(b) because it tracks the requirements of subsection (7)(b) and contemplates additional work as permitted by the statute.” The Second District Court of Appeal agreed with their argument, specifying that while “[s]ubsection (7)(a) generally prohibits the assignee and its subcontractors from collecting or attempting to collect money from an insured for payments arising from the assignment agreement. It does so while simultaneously providing for three exceptions, which are noted in subsection (7)(b). Specifically, subsection (7)(b) makes clear that a named insured is still responsible for ‘[a]ny deductible amount due under the policy,’ ‘[a]ny betterment ordered and performed that is approved by the named insured,’ and ‘[a]ny contracted work performed before the assignment agreement is rescinded.’”
Further, the court concluded that even if the assignment of benefits violated subsection (7)(a) or (7)(b), this would not render the agreement invalid. Under Fla. Stat. § 627.7152(2)(d), it states that an “assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable.” Emphasis added. Citizens never alleged Well Done Mitigation was not incompliance with subsection (2)’s requirements. Further, subsection (7) “operates to limit the assignee’s collection rights against the insureds after the validity of an assignment agreement is determined.”
Therefore, the court reversed the trial court decision, finding that the language at issue did not violate Fla. Stat. § 627.7152(7)(b) and if it had, the entire assignment of benefits still would not have been rendered invalid and unenforceable.
