News & Events

Amy Klotz, an attorney in the firm’s appellate litigation support division, prevailed on an AOB summary judgment. In this case, the court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit, and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.7152(2)(d). We argued that the AOB on which the plaintiff relied was invalid and unenforceable pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.7152(2)(a)(4) because although the AOB contained an estimate of labor rates and equipment rates, the estimate did not contain the number of hours of labor to be performed, the square footage on which the equipment was to be used, or the number of units of equipment to be used and, as such, did not reasonably apprise the insured of the estimated costs of the services to be performed. We also pointed out that although the estimate totaled $5,000.00, Plaintiff submitted invoices to our client in the amount of $36,675.01, and there was no evidence that the insured was provided additional information regarding the estimated cost of the services to be performed at the time the insured signed the AOB. We further argued that the AOB allowed for the recovery of depreciation by the assignee, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 627.7152(7)(a).