Professional Liability

Florida Roof Masters (FRM) and Ms. Page signed a contract wherein FRM would provide roofing services at a cost of $18,000. Page paid $9,000 prior to services being completed but refused to pay the remaining balance upon completion. FRM hired a collection company to pursue the debt on their behalf, with their contract allowing the collection company to keep a percentage of the recovery as payment with the rest going to FRM.

FRM later filed suit against Page, alleging breach of contract, among other issues. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Page as to the breach claim, finding that FRM did not have standing to bring this claim against Page because its contract with the collection company had assigned its rights under the original roofing contract to the collection company.

On appeal, the 1st District Court of Appeal noted the collection contract referenced “assigned debt,” but it did not include a full and unconditional assignment of FRM’s interests in the original roofing contract. Insofar as there was any assignment at all, it was only the ability to sue on FRM’s behalf that was assigned; thus, FRM did not surrender its rights to enforce the original roofing contract. Therefore, all FRM would need to do to establish standing is to show it had a “direct and articulable stake in the outcome” of the controversy, which it did through its still-outstanding debt.

As a result, the District Court reversed summary judgment as to FRM’s breach of contract claim and held that it did indeed have standing to sue Page for breach.