Citation: 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 207b (Online Ref.: FLWSUPP 3305CARN)
Court: County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Broward County), Division 62
Case No.: COINX24025303
Date: July 3, 2025
Judge: Woody Clermont
Parties: Sherry Carney, Plaintiff, v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Defendant
Counsel (Plaintiff): Isha Kumar and Daniela Coy, Milber, Makris, Plousadis & Seiden, LLP
Counsel (Defendant): Karina Rios, The Professional Law Group, PLLC
Snapshot
Issue: Homeowner standing and payment obligations after an invalid AOB under § 627.7152; whether Citizens’ partial payment to the remediator under the $3,000 emergency-services cap extinguished the balance of an appraisal award; and whether equitable estoppel bars Citizens from denying the insured’s right to recover.
Result: Citizens’ motion for summary judgment DENIED. The AOB was invalid as a matter of law; standing remains with the insured; partial payment under the emergency cap does not wipe out the remainder of the award; equitable estoppel applies based on Citizens’ letters; and several claimed items were not “emergency services,” so the cap does not apply to them.
Background & Posture
- 2022 loss; homeowner Carney signed an AOB with Direct Dry Up for mitigation/tarping.
- Citizens repeatedly told the parties (Sept. 5 and Oct. 4, 2023) the AOB was non-compliant with § 627.7152 and that reimbursement would be mailed to the insured.
- An appraisal award issued (Dec. 27–29, 2023) including water mitigation and tarping amounts.
- Despite maintaining the AOB was invalid, Citizens paid $3,000 to the remediator (the emergency-services cap) and refused to pay the $9,108.85 remainder to the homeowner.
- Carney, relying on Citizens’ letters, paid the vendor to resolve the bill and then sought the award remainder from Citizens. Citizens moved for summary judgment.
Ruling & Key Holdings
1) AOB Invalid → Standing Stays with the Insured
The AOB failed § 627.7152(2)(a) requirements (including no written, itemized, per-unit estimate), making it “invalid and unenforceable.” With an invalid assignment, rights never transfer, so the insured retains standing to pursue benefits. The court rejected Citizens’ internally inconsistent stance that no one (neither assignee nor insured) could sue.
2) Emergency-Services Cap Payment ≠ Full Satisfaction
Citizens’ $3,000 payment to the vendor under § 627.7152(2)(c) did not extinguish the remaining $9,108.85 in the appraisal award. The cap limits what an assignee may receive, not what the insured can recover under the policy—especially after an invalid AOB where standing remains with the insured.
3) Equitable Estoppel
Citizens’ letters expressly said it would pay the insured (not the vendor) due to the invalid AOB. Carney relied on those representations and changed position detrimentally by paying the vendor. Citizens is equitably estopped from later denying the insured’s right to recover the remainder.
4) Not All Claimed Items Were “Emergency Services”
Record evidence showed non-emergency work (e.g., inspections and services many months post-loss). Thus, even if the AOB were treated as “qualified,” the $3,000 cap would not cover non-urgent items—another basis to deny summary judgment.
5) Genuine Issues for Trial
Conflicting facts (scope/urgency of services; reliance; application of the award; statutory operation) precluded summary judgment under the Celotex/Anderson/Matsushita trilogy. Motion denied.
Why This Matters (Practical Takeaways)
- Invalid AOB ≠ Insurer immunity. If § 627.7152 makes an AOB invalid, standing stays with the insured—insurers cannot invoke the invalidity both to avoid paying the assignee and to block the insured.
- Emergency cap is not a global cap. § 627.7152(2)(c) caps assignee recovery for urgent work; it does not erase covered losses owed to the insured—especially where items are non-emergency.
- Mind your letters. Written communications that promise to pay the insured can trigger equitable estoppel if the insured relies and is harmed by a later reversal.
- Appraisal awards still matter. An insurer that pays less than the award risks litigation exposure, fee entitlement issues, and estoppel arguments.
Related Reading (your approved links)
- AOB enforceability primer: Ronda Ellis v. Titan Restoration (AOB in property insurance)
- Process & expectations: What Happens When Filing a Homeowners Insurance Claim
- Dispute triggers: Common Reasons for Home Insurance Disputes
- Tactics to watch: Ways Insurance Companies Try to Avoid Paying
- Consumer pressure points: Florida Homeowners Insurance Complaints
Today’s Insight
“In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.”