Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Ifergane
2012 WL 4010964, 114 So.3d 190, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15236 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insured who assigns their right to benefits under a policy does not assign their contractual obligations. The named insured's refusal to comply with a condition precedent to recovery, such as submitting to an examination under oath, precludes recovery under the policy for both the named insured and their assignee.
Facts:
- In 2004, Haim and Alexandra Ifergane, a married couple, jointly purchased a residential property.
- The property was insured by a Citizens Property Insurance Corporation wind-only policy, on which Alexandra was the only named insured.
- The policy required an insured, upon request, to submit to an examination under oath (EUO) as a duty after a loss.
- On October 25, 2005, the property sustained damage from Hurricane Wilma.
- On November 17, 2005, Alexandra filed for divorce from Haim.
- As part of a marital settlement agreement on April 4, 2006, Alexandra executed a quitclaim deed assigning all her rights, title, and interest in the property to Haim.
- Citizens requested that both Haim and Alexandra submit to EUOs to investigate the claim.
- Haim complied with the request, but Alexandra refused, asserting she was no longer obligated because she had assigned her rights to Haim.
Procedural Posture:
- Citizens Property Insurance Corporation filed a declaratory judgment action against Haim and Alexandra Ifergane in a Florida trial court to determine its coverage obligations.
- The trial court granted a motion for partial summary judgment finding that Alexandra had validly assigned her interest in the insurance claim to Haim.
- Subsequently, the trial court granted Alexandra's motion to be dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice.
- The trial court denied Citizens' motion for summary judgment and granted Haim Ifergane’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of coverage.
- After an appraisal was conducted, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Haim Ifergane.
- Citizens (appellant) appealed the order dismissing Alexandra, the order granting summary judgment to Haim, and the final judgment to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a named insured’s assignment of her right to benefits under an insurance policy relieve her of her post-loss obligation to submit to an examination under oath, thereby allowing the assignee co-insured to recover on the claim despite her refusal?
Opinions:
Majority - Lagoa, J.
No. A named insured's assignment of her benefits under an insurance policy does not relieve her of her post-loss contractual duties, and her failure to comply with a condition precedent to recovery precludes recovery by her assignee. The court reasoned that the assignment of a contractual right, such as an insurance benefit, does not automatically transfer a contractual duty, such as the obligation to sit for an EUO, unless the assignee expressly assents to assume that duty. The policy provision requiring an insured to submit to an EUO is a condition precedent to recovery, not merely a cooperation clause. Alexandra's refusal to comply with this condition constitutes a willful and material breach of the contract, which relieves the insurer, Citizens, of its obligation to pay under the policy. Therefore, Haim, as the assignee, is also precluded from recovery.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal distinction between the assignment of rights and the delegation of duties under a contract. It clarifies for insurers and insureds in Florida that post-loss obligations are personal to the insured and cannot be shed by simply assigning away the benefits of a claim. The ruling protects an insurer's ability to investigate claims by compelling compliance from the original insureds, who often possess the most relevant information about the loss. This precedent makes it clear that full compliance with all conditions precedent by all required parties is necessary for an assignee to recover on a claim.
