Empathy List Archives

clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Assignment of Benefits Matter, Part Two

Alan Lubitz

Wed, Jul 3, 2019 1:07 PM

Good morning, colleagues,

It appears that the assignment of insurance benefits matter has morphed
beyond the passage of House Bill 7065 (Florida Statute Section 627.7152),
with all its attendant construction contract drafting problems. Yesterday,
one of my clients, a roofing contractor, advised that it discovered that two
apparently unaffiliated property insurance companies have placed a provision
in their policies that requires its insured property owner to use a
contractor approved by the carrier. Upon further inquiry, my client
determined that the contractor mandated by one of the carriers was a
national company. Of course my thoughts immediately turned negative,
thinking of conspiracy and restraint of trade implications.

Have any of you encountered any of these issues, and if so, do you have any
thoughts and suggestions?

I look forward to your usually inciteful responses and wish all of you a
happy Fourth of July holiday.

Best regards,

Alan

Alan H. Lubitz, Esq.
Law Office of Alan H. Lubitz, P. A.
101 Plaza Real South

Suite 401

Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-368-4404

mailto:alanhlubitzpa@bellsouth.net alanhlubitzpa@bellsouth.net

This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named
addressee(s). This email may contain information that is confidential,
proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender by email reply.

Good morning, colleagues, It appears that the assignment of insurance benefits matter has morphed beyond the passage of House Bill 7065 (Florida Statute Section 627.7152), with all its attendant construction contract drafting problems. Yesterday, one of my clients, a roofing contractor, advised that it discovered that two apparently unaffiliated property insurance companies have placed a provision in their policies that requires its insured property owner to use a contractor approved by the carrier. Upon further inquiry, my client determined that the contractor mandated by one of the carriers was a national company. Of course my thoughts immediately turned negative, thinking of conspiracy and restraint of trade implications. Have any of you encountered any of these issues, and if so, do you have any thoughts and suggestions? I look forward to your usually inciteful responses and wish all of you a happy Fourth of July holiday. Best regards, Alan Alan H. Lubitz, Esq. Law Office of Alan H. Lubitz, P. A. 101 Plaza Real South Suite 401 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-368-4404 <mailto:alanhlubitzpa@bellsouth.net> alanhlubitzpa@bellsouth.net This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s). This email may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply.

Bruce Partington

Thu, Jul 4, 2019 3:55 PM

My guess would be that this is the "managed repair arrangement provided in the policy" in the new 627.7152(5) which very likely slipped under the radar....

Bruce Partington | Shareholder
bpartington@clarkpartington.com | (850) 432-1399callto:(850)%20432-1399

CLARK PARTINGTON
Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340
125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor
Pensacola, Florida 32502
clarkpartington.comhttp://clarkpartington.com/

[cid:SignatureLogo_57e3dfc0-9904-44ee-93b6-c3b57df5d8d8.jpg]

[cid:Facebook_55598884-7995-4d93-92d3-5101d580d70c.png]https://www.facebook.com/ClarkPartington/ [cid:LinkedIn_57c89113-2875-479d-9fdd-fd3a2a809f98.png] https://www.linkedin.com/company/2250553/admin/ [cid:Twitter_216c94ca-a91c-458c-ad76-295500e4747c.png] https://twitter.com/ClarkPartington [cid:Instagram_c437b822-13ce-4d58-87bc-212014b134fa.png] https://www.instagram.com/clarkpartington/

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Alan Lubitz
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 8:08 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Cc: 'Scott Haft' SrHaft@haftlawgroup.com
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Assignment of Benefits Matter, Part Two

Good morning, colleagues,

It appears that the assignment of insurance benefits matter has morphed beyond the passage of House Bill 7065 (Florida Statute Section 627.7152), with all its attendant construction contract drafting problems. Yesterday, one of my clients, a roofing contractor, advised that it discovered that two apparently unaffiliated property insurance companies have placed a provision in their policies that requires its insured property owner to use a contractor approved by the carrier. Upon further inquiry, my client determined that the contractor mandated by one of the carriers was a national company. Of course my thoughts immediately turned negative, thinking of conspiracy and restraint of trade implications.

Have any of you encountered any of these issues, and if so, do you have any thoughts and suggestions?

I look forward to your usually inciteful responses and wish all of you a happy Fourth of July holiday.

Best regards,

Alan
Alan H. Lubitz, Esq.
Law Office of Alan H. Lubitz, P. A.
101 Plaza Real South
Suite 401
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-368-4404
alanhlubitzpa@bellsouth.net mailto:alanhlubitzpa@bellsouth.net

This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s). This email may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply.

My guess would be that this is the "managed repair arrangement provided in the policy" in the new 627.7152(5) which very likely slipped under the radar.... Bruce Partington | Shareholder bpartington@clarkpartington.com | (850) 432-1399<callto:(850)%20432-1399> CLARK PARTINGTON Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340 125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor Pensacola, Florida 32502 clarkpartington.com<http://clarkpartington.com/> [cid:SignatureLogo_57e3dfc0-9904-44ee-93b6-c3b57df5d8d8.jpg] [cid:Facebook_55598884-7995-4d93-92d3-5101d580d70c.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ClarkPartington/> [cid:LinkedIn_57c89113-2875-479d-9fdd-fd3a2a809f98.png] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/2250553/admin/> [cid:Twitter_216c94ca-a91c-458c-ad76-295500e4747c.png] <https://twitter.com/ClarkPartington> [cid:Instagram_c437b822-13ce-4d58-87bc-212014b134fa.png] <https://www.instagram.com/clarkpartington/> From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Alan Lubitz Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 8:08 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Cc: 'Scott Haft' <SrHaft@haftlawgroup.com> Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Assignment of Benefits Matter, Part Two Good morning, colleagues, It appears that the assignment of insurance benefits matter has morphed beyond the passage of House Bill 7065 (Florida Statute Section 627.7152), with all its attendant construction contract drafting problems. Yesterday, one of my clients, a roofing contractor, advised that it discovered that two apparently unaffiliated property insurance companies have placed a provision in their policies that requires its insured property owner to use a contractor approved by the carrier. Upon further inquiry, my client determined that the contractor mandated by one of the carriers was a national company. Of course my thoughts immediately turned negative, thinking of conspiracy and restraint of trade implications. Have any of you encountered any of these issues, and if so, do you have any thoughts and suggestions? I look forward to your usually inciteful responses and wish all of you a happy Fourth of July holiday. Best regards, Alan Alan H. Lubitz, Esq. Law Office of Alan H. Lubitz, P. A. 101 Plaza Real South Suite 401 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-368-4404 alanhlubitzpa@bellsouth.net<mailto:alanhlubitzpa@bellsouth.net> This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s). This email may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply.