![]() However, it is not itemized and does not contain a per-unit cost for the services to be provided. Plaintiff argues the document titled “Mold Assessment Invoice” satisfied the requirements of the statute. The assignment is required to contain a per unit cost estimate. Defendant argues that the invoice is not itemized and does not contain a breakdown of the per unit costs for the services to be performed.Īfter reviewing the assignment, it does not comply with Fla. § 627.7152(2)(a)(4) states, “An assignment agreement must contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee.” Attached to the complaint as “Exhibit A” is an assignment of benefits executed by the assignor/homeowner and Plaintiff, and a separate invoice for a single mold assessment fee. Carter from Orange County Court, Florida agreed with the insurer and dismissed Truviewmold’s Complaint with prejudice by explaining:įla. Truviewmold opposed the motion to dismiss by arguing that its attachment of the non-itemized invoice to its assignment agreement sufficiently complied with Section 627.7152.įollowing a hearing, County Court Judge Amy J. § 627.7152(2)(a)(4), which requires all agreements for the assignment of policy benefits for mitigation services associated with residential property insurance claims to “contain a written, itemized per unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee,” on grounds that Truviewmold’s action was facially negated by the purported assignment agreement attached as an exhibit to the Complaint, since the purported assignment was invalid and unenforceable. But instead of attaching an itemized estimate of its mold assessment services to the purported assignment agreement, Truviewmold instead attached only a non-itemized invoice listing a single $1,500.00 lump sum charge for a “mold assessment fee.”Īttorney Rob Rogers of The Rock Law Group filed a motion to dismiss Truviewmold’s Complaint with prejudice based upon Fla. The insurer did not dispute that Truviewmold had provided the insurer its purported assignment agreement (which Truviewmold attached as an exhibit to its Complaint) less than three business days after the Insured signed that agreement, nor did the insurer dispute that the purported assignment agreement appeared to contain most of the terms required under Florida Statutes Section 627.7152. Plaintiff Truviewmold, LLC a/a/o Wesner Saint Juste (“Truviewold”) had filed suit against an insurer, alleging that the insurer had breached a policy that the insurer issued to Truviewmold’s assignor by failing to pay Truviewmold for mold assessment services that Truviewmold claimed it provided to Insured in connection with Insured’s claim for property damage caused by a plumbing leak. The Rock Law Group recently persuaded a Florida County Court to dismiss with prejudice a lawsuit filed by a mold assessment company as a purported assignee of benefits, by agreeing with the insurer’s argument that the mold assessment company’s attachment of only a non-itemized invoice of its services, rather than an “itemized, per unit estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee,” failed to comply with Fla. ![]() ![]() ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |