.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Florida’s Fifth District Reaffirms Appellate Consensus on Assignment of Benefits Contract Requirements

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – March 2026

March 1, 2026

by Carolin A. Pacheco

The Kidwell Group LLC dba AQA aao John Fortner v Citizens Property, Case No. 5D2024-1843 (December 19, 2025)

The Fifth District Court of Appeals rendered a decision further upholding the requirements set forth within Section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, finding valid an assignment of benefits, even though the insurance company argued that the assignment company’s purported paperwork was not detailed enough to satisfy the statutory requirements to render the contract valid and enforceable.

The underlying action concerned an assignment of benefits that attached an invoice as its so-called “Itemized Per-Unit Cost Invoice" that consisted of assessment services to prepare an engineering report with a repair plan for an estimated $3,000. The assignment agreement stated that both parties acknowledged that the itemized per-unit cost estimate/invoice was legally binding. Citizens declined to pay and argued that the contract did not contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services the assignee had to perform. The Kidwell Group filed suit, claiming that Citizens breached its insurance agreement by failing to pay for the engineer report. Citizens ultimately moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the assignment agreement was invalid because it failed to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice after a re-hearing.

The court opined that the plaintiff’s assignment agreement and the incorporated invoice plainly comport with the dictates of section 627.7152(2)(a)4 – an engineer report with repair plan. In reaching its decision, the Fifth District noted that the trial judge who dismissed the case failed to follow the Fourth District's SafePoint decision, even though that ruling was binding precedent. Specifically citing to prior decisions from the Third and Fourth districts (In Kidwell Group, LLC v. SafePoint Insurance Co., 376 So. 3d 48, 51–52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)), where the Fourth District determined that identical language within The Kidwell Group’s assignment agreement and incorporated invoice was “sufficiently detailed” to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a).

As it happens, the Third, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts are in agreement as to how to interpret section 627.7152(2)(a) as it pertains to similar engineering reports assignment agreements.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.