In Holding Insurance Companies Accountable, LLC, a/a/o Parnell Dickinson v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, Caryn Bellus and Ben Carter obtained an affirmance of a summary judgment in a first-party property case brought by an assignee where the assignment did not comply with Section 627.7152. The assignee argued that the statute, which applies to assignments to or from a person “providing services to protect, repair, restore, or replace property, or to mitigate against further damage to property” did not apply to the subject assignment, because the assignee only sought to recover money on the insured’s claim, and did not provide any actual repair services. However, both the assignment and the assignee’s complaint provided for any money recovered to be paid in accordance with a separate direction to pay contract for a new roof. The trial court found this was enough to trigger the statute and entered summary judgment for the insurer.

On appeal, the assignee argued that the plain language of the statute showed it only applies to assignees who perform repairs, and the “service” of filing a lawsuit to collect benefits is beyond the statute’s reach. Relying on the time-tested rule of “if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck,” Caryn and Ben argued that by seeking insurance benefits that would be used to repair the property, HICA was providing “services” as part of the insured’s effort to repair the property, and thus had to comply with the statute. Shortly after oral argument, the Second District Affirmed.