The Appellate Court of Maryland held today that an anti-assignment clause applied to void a policyholder’s “broad assignment.”
In the Matter of the Petition of Featherfall Restoration LLC, the policyholders executed an “Assignment of Claim” which purported to give broad rights under the Policy related to a roof damage claim. Specifically, the “Assignment of Claim” stated that the policyholder transferred: “any and all insurance rights, benefits, proceeds, and any causes of action under applicable insurance policies for the above mentioned claim.”
The insurer refused to recognize the “Assignment of Claim” based on the Policy’s Anti-Assignment Clause, which required that assignments of the policy be made with the insurer’s written consent.
The Appellate Court of Maryland rejected the assignee’s argument that the assignment of a single claim under that Policy is permitted, reasoning that a policyholder’s broad assignment — without consent — would render the anti-assignment clause meaningless. The court further held that broad assignments, such as the “Assignment of Claim” at issue here, are precluded by the Policy’s anti-assignment clause. The Featherfall Restoration opinion provides a roadmap to assignees and insurers regarding the bounds of a “broad assignment.”
Notably, this opinion may have a significant impact on the MIA and courts’ perception of the unauthorized practice of public adjusting.
The Opinion can be found here.
This post was originally published through Horst Krekstein & Runyon’s Property in 60 Seconds Newsletter. If you would like to receive future copies of that newsletter, please contact Sean Dever at sdever@hkr.law.