Citizens Property Insurance lost an assignment of benefits dispute, with a Florida appeals court ruling the assignment agreement met state statutory requirements.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled on December 19 that an assignment agreement between homeowner John Fortner and The Kidwell Group satisfied Florida's statutory requirements, even though Citizens had argued the paperwork wasn't detailed enough.
The case shows how Florida courts are interpreting assignment of benefits rules when it comes to the requirement for itemized, per-unit cost estimates.
Here's what happened. After Fortner's home suffered damage he believed was covered under his Citizens policy, he signed an agreement with The Kidwell Group, which does business as Air Quality Assessors. The company would provide assessment services and prepare an engineering report with a repair plan for an estimated $3,000.
The assignment agreement stated that both parties acknowledged "an itemized per-unit cost estimate/invoice has been provided with this contract and is fully incorporated herein." The attached invoice listed the product as an "Engineering Report from State Licensed Professional Engineer," showed a quantity of 1.00, and a total price of $3,000.
The Kidwell Group, now holding rights to the insurance benefits, submitted the invoice to Citizens. The insurer declined to pay. The company sued, claiming Citizens had breached its agreement with Fortner.
Citizens pushed back, asking the court to dismiss the case entirely. The insurer's argument hinged on section 627.7152 of Florida law, which spells out requirements for assignment agreements. Specifically, the statute says these agreements must contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services the assignee will perform.
The case took an unusual turn at the trial level. Initially, the judge denied Citizens' dismissal motion. But after granting a rehearing with a different judge on the bench, the court reversed course. The second judge agreed with Citizens and dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding the assignment agreement didn't meet statutory requirements.
That's where things stood until the Fifth District weighed in. Judge Soud, writing for the appellate panel, said the trial court got it wrong.
"The assignment agreement identified the single product of an engineer report with repair plan," the court wrote. "The incorporated invoice further detailed one 'Engineer Report from State Licensed Professional Engineer' for the cost of $3,000. As a result, the agreement and the incorporated invoice plainly comport with the dictates of section 627.7152."
The appeals court didn't arrive at this conclusion in a vacuum. Two other Florida district courts had already looked at nearly identical agreements from The Kidwell Group and reached the same result.
In a 2023 case against SafePoint Insurance Co., the Fourth District found that the same contract language was sufficiently detailed to meet the law's requirements. Then, in a 2025 decision involving Southern Oak Insurance Co., the Third District agreed, calling the assignment agreement in that case "identical in all material respects" to the one in SafePoint.
The Fifth District noted something else that caught its attention. The trial judge who dismissed the case hadn't followed the Fourth District's SafePoint decision, even though that ruling was binding precedent. Under Florida law, when there's no conflict between district courts, their decisions bind trial judges across the state.
"Notwithstanding this binding precedent from the Fourth District, the trial court declined to follow SafePoint and dismissed the case with prejudice," the appeals court wrote, adding that no distinguishing factors existed between the cases.
Now all three district courts are aligned on how to interpret the statute when it comes to single-service engineering reports. For assignment agreements, the law defines them as any instrument transferring post-loss benefits under a residential or commercial property insurance policy to someone providing services.
The statute itself was amended in 2022, moving the itemized estimate requirement from subsection 4 to subsection 5. But the 2021 version applied to Fortner's agreement with The Kidwell Group.
The appellate court sent the case back to Seminole County Court for proceedings in line with its opinion. Judges Harris and Associate Judge Blocker joined the decision.
The ruling isn't final yet. Under Florida's appellate rules, either side can file certain post-decision motions that could affect the outcome.
With three Florida district courts now in agreement, the decision establishes that for a single service like an engineering report, an invoice identifying the product, quantity, and price satisfies section 627.7152's requirement for an itemized, per-unit cost estimate.
