One Year Later … The Climate of AOB After HB 7065
The bill requires that certain language be included in the assignment of benefits contract, provides timeframes to submit documents, and requires various conditions be met for an AOB claim to be compliant. These new requirements heavily impact whether an AOB company will be paid for its work.
June 23, 2020 at 09:30 AM
5 minute read
It has been more than one year since The Florida Legislature passed a bill that significantly impacted the assignment of benefits (AOB) industry. The bill took effect July 1, 2019. Roofers, contractors and mitigation companies continue to feel the tremors of the new changes of House Bill 7065.
The bill requires that certain language be included in the assignment of benefits contract, provides timeframes to submit documents, and requires various conditions be met for an AOB claim to be compliant. These new requirements heavily impact whether an AOB company will be paid for its work.
The bill also allows an insurance company to completely prohibit the use of an assignment, in whole or in part. While this measure is not necessarily new, the newer policies may take advantage of this; thereby, preventing homeowners from choosing a company of their choice to mitigate or make repairs.
As a result, the new law directly affects how an AOB company runs its business. While some chose to shut down their operations after the bill was passed, many chose to work through it and comply with the new requirements. So where do things stand today?
Does the bill require a bit more crossing of the t's and dotting of the i's? Absolutely. But does it preclude recovery in its entirety? Not necessarily. While there hasn't been any precedence determined by the upper courts, jurisdictions currently seem to be conflicted on certain issues. Furthermore, insurance companies have had different responses to the submission of the AOB claim documentation.
In some instances, the AOB companies and insurance adjusters are working together amicably to resolve invoices that arise from insurance claims. In other instances, the insurance companies have made it difficult to resolve invoices due to numerous invasive, burdensome requests or ambiguous denials with no offer of explanation—even after inquiry. Where there is ambiguity and inconsistency, there is a chance for change.
The bill was passed in an effort to curtail predatory AOB practices. But as we all know, there's more than one side to every AOB claim. In a world where contractors and insurance companies do not always agree, it remains important for AOB contractors to make informed decisions, stand up for those decisions and work product.
When it comes to one's home, there is nothing that should be taken lightly—including the decision to assign homeowner's insurance benefits. And all parties involved should take it very seriously.
The insurance industry promised the new bill would lower premiums and protect consumers. To date, that has not been the case. A recent article by The Center Square stated "credit rating agency AM Best Co. projected average reinsurance cost increases of 15% to 20% for Florida homeowners. That projection has proven conservative, with three home insurers already receiving permission from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) to raise rates between 20% and 40%."
It remains imperative for homeowners to completely understand their home insurance policies, limitations and exclusions to see how their rights are affected. AOB companies will need to remain compliant and challenge issues that are overly burdensome or prejudicial. Insurance agents must have knowledge of policy provisions in order to inform their customers of what terms will impact coverage for a loss. And homeowners must remain cognizant of the policy that protects one of their most valued possessions—their home.
Many AOB contractors have implemented new processes and procedures to be compliant. But what happens when they are compliant, and the claim and associated work and charges are still rejected? Is there no form of recourse for work that has been completed or desperately needs to be completed? What happens when the insurance company deems an AOB invalid due to a minor error? Is it fair to the homeowner? To the AOB company?
With hurricane season each year, it will only be a matter of time before we find out if the new law benefits homeowners. When the number of claims spike due to severe weather, we will quickly learn whether these new requirements help or hinder the people it is meant to protect.
There is still a lot we do not know and a lot that is bound to unfold. But what we do know is the current increase in insurance rates is not a sign of improved consumer protection.
The impact felt by Florida's contractors has resulted in new practices and renewed resilience. But at the end of the day it is all about the homeowner. The AOB industry is not dead. There are still opportunities to help homeowners in need but know your rights and try to thoroughly understand the provisions of Bill 7065 and the insurance policies you work under in assignment of benefits.
Kimesha Smith is an attorney and vice president of client relations at Insurance Litigation Group in North Miami Beach. She practices first-party property insurance focused on helping homeowners and commercial policyholders with their insurance disputes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readNavigating Florida Property Insurance Claims in a Post-Fee-Shifting World
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250