A Florida appeals court has ruled against Citizens Property Insurance in a dispute over an assignment of benefits, finding that the assignment agreement met state legal requirements. The ruling came from the Fifth District Court of Appeal on December 19, 2025, in a case involving homeowner John Fortner and The Kidwell Group, which operates as Air Quality Assessors.
Fortner’s home suffered damage he believed was covered by his Citizens insurance policy. He signed an agreement with The Kidwell Group for assessment services and an engineering report outlining a repair plan, estimated to cost $3,000. The contract included a statement that both parties acknowledged an itemized cost estimate was attached and part of the contract. The invoice listed a single item: an engineering report from a licensed professional engineer, with a quantity of one and a total price of $3,000.
When The Kidwell Group submitted the invoice to Citizens, the insurer refused to pay. The company then sued Citizens for breach of contract. Citizens argued the assignment agreement failed to meet the requirements under Florida law, specifically section 627.7152, which demands a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of services to be performed.
At the trial level, the case saw a shift. The initial judge denied Citizens’ request to dismiss the case. However, after a rehearing with a different judge, the case was dismissed with prejudice because the assignment was deemed insufficient under the statute.
The appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s dismissal. Judge Soud wrote that the agreement clearly identified the engineering report as a single product, and the attached invoice provided the necessary details. This, the court said, was enough to meet the legal standard. The panel’s decision was joined by Judges Harris and Associate Judge Blocker.
This ruling aligns with earlier decisions from two other Florida district courts. The Fourth District ruled in 2023 that similar contract language from The Kidwell Group was acceptable. Then, in 2025, the Third District reached the same conclusion in a comparable case. The Fifth District noted the trial judge’s failure to follow the Fourth District’s earlier ruling, which was binding precedent under Florida law.
The appeals court sent the case back to Seminole County Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. While the ruling is not final and could be affected by post-decision motions, the decision marks a clear interpretation: for a single service such as an engineering report, an invoice listing the product, quantity, and price satisfies Florida’s requirement for an itemized, per-unit cost estimate under section 627.7152.
This case sheds light on how Florida courts handle assignment of benefits disputes, especially when dealing with straightforward service contracts. It also reinforces the importance of consistent application of binding precedents across the state’s courts.