Restoration 1 CFL v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co. , 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6145 ( 2016 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
RESTORATION 1 CFL A/A/O I. JOY WHITE,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D15-1049
STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 22, 2016
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Janet C. Thorpe, Judge.
Susan W. Fox and Gray R. Proctor, of Fox
& Loquasto, P.A., Orlando, and T. Paul
Zeniewicz, of Cohen Battisti Grossman,
Winter Park, for Appellant.
Scot E. Samis, of Traub, Lieberman, Straus
& Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg, for
Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Restoration 1 CFL (“Restoration”), a/a/o I. Joy White (“White”), appeals the trial
court’s order granting final summary judgment on behalf of State Farm Florida
Insurance Company (“State Farm”). State Farm contends that the assignment of
benefits from White to Restoration transferred the right to collect benefits but not the
right to participate in a suit to determine coverage under the policy regarding those
benefits. The trial court determined that the assignment was not valid because White
intended to retain control of her rights, basing its conclusion largely upon statements
made by White during a deposition. For the following reasons, we reverse.
First, we conclude that the assignment of benefits from White to Restoration is
clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it was error to allow introduction of extrinsic
evidence to determine the meaning of the agreement. See, e.g., King v. Bray, 867 So.
2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“[T]he party seeking to introduce parol evidence
must establish that the document is ambiguous and in need of interpretation.”).
Accordingly, White’s deposition testimony regarding her interpretation of the assignment
should not have been considered by the trial court.
We further conclude that the assignment of insurance benefits transferred to the
assignee, Restoration, standing to litigate the coverage issue raised by State Farm
when it denied the claim. See Bioscience W., Inc. v. Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
185 So. 3d 638, 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); United Water Restoration Grp., Inc. v. State
Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 173 So. 3d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Because Restoration
had standing to participate in the suit to determine coverage under the policy for the
benefits assigned, it was error for the trial court to grant State Farm’s motion for
summary judgment. We therefore reverse and remand this case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
2