Case Law Update: Premier Mitigation v. Citizens, Third DCA Affirms Under Florida's Emergency-AOB Cap

On August 27, 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed in Premier Mitigation Services, Inc., etc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 3D24-2297, an appeal taken from the County Court for Miami-Dade County (Lower Tribunal No. 22-29133-CC-25), where Judge Gloria Gonzalez-Meyer presided. Premier Mitigation Services, Inc. is the appellant; Citizens Property Insurance Corporation is the appellee. The panel, Chief Judge Scales sitting with Judges Gordo and Bokor, affirmed per curiam, and the opinion is not final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

A one-word disposition, and four citations that carry it

The body of this opinion is a single word: “Affirmed.” There is no statement of facts and no discussion. What the panel did supply is a citation string, and in Florida appellate practice a citation string attached to an affirmance is the court telling readers which authorities control the result. Here, all four address the same subject: when an assignment of post-loss residential property insurance benefits executed under an urgent or emergency circumstance is valid, and what happens to an assignee’s lawsuit when it is not.

Because the court recited no facts, nothing below should be read as a finding about what this particular contractor did or what this particular assignment said. The value here is the framework the panel chose to cite, not a narrative it never wrote.

The dollar cap the panel cited first

The opinion leads with section 627.7152(2)(c), Florida Statutes, quoting it in full:

“If an assignor acts under an urgent or emergency circumstance to protect property from damage and executes an assignment agreement to protect, repair, restore, or replace property or to mitigate against further damage to the property, an assignee may not receive an assignment of post-loss benefits under a residential property insurance policy in excess of the greater of $3,000 or 1 percent of the Coverage A limit under such policy. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘urgent or emergency circumstance’ means a situation in which a loss to property, if not addressed immediately, will result in additional damage until measures are completed to prevent such damage.”

The panel then cited section 627.7152(2)(d): “An assignment agreement that does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable.”

Read together, those two paragraphs describe a hard ceiling with an all-or-nothing consequence. The ceiling is the greater of $3,000 or one percent of the Coverage A limit, so on a policy with $300,000 of Coverage A the cap is $3,000, while on a policy with $600,000 of Coverage A it is $6,000. The consequence attaches to the agreement itself: an assignment that does not comply is not trimmed back to the statutory number, it is invalid and unenforceable.

What the two cited cases add

For the effect of an invalid assignment on a lawsuit, the panel cited Total Care Restoration, LLC v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 357 So. 3d 1260, 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023), for the proposition that “[t]he trial court properly dismissed Total Care’s complaint with prejudice as its breach of contract action was premised upon a statutorily invalid and unenforceable assignment of benefits agreement.”

It then cited its own more recent decision, Spartan Services Corp. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 428 So. 3d 218, 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026), which the panel quoted as follows: “Indeed, a violation of section 627.7152(2) will subject an assignee’s claim against an insurer to dismissal for lack of standing.”

Those two authorities locate the issue where it hurts a vendor most. A defect in the assignment is not a damages question to be sorted out later in the case; under the cases the panel cited, it goes to whether the assignee may bring the suit at all.

What this means if you work under an emergency mitigation assignment

Every file turns on its own documents, its own policy, and its own record, and one per curiam affirmance does not change any of that. Still, a few practical points follow from the authorities this panel chose to cite.

First, the cap is a function of the policy, not of the invoice. Before an emergency assignment is signed, the Coverage A limit on the declarations page is what sets the number, and one percent of that limit only beats $3,000 once Coverage A exceeds $300,000. A vendor that writes the agreement without reading the declarations page is guessing at its own ceiling.

Second, the statute defines “urgent or emergency circumstance” narrowly, as a loss that will keep causing additional damage until protective measures are completed. Whether a given job fits that definition is a factual question, and it determines which paragraph of the assignment statute the agreement has to satisfy.

Third, because subsection (2)(d) makes a non-compliant agreement invalid and unenforceable rather than merely reducible, the downside is not a smaller recovery. Under Total Care and Spartan Services as this panel cited them, it can be dismissal.

Fourth, an assignment that never validly transferred anything is a problem for the assignee’s lawsuit, and homeowners with an open claim should not assume a vendor’s dispute with the carrier has resolved their own claim one way or the other.

This opinion is not final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing, and it should be read as one panel’s citation-supported affirmance rather than as guidance about any other file. If a Florida property insurer other than Citizens has denied or underpaid your residential property claim, Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation. For background on how these disputes develop, see our guide on a denied homeowners insurance claim in Florida.

Case: Premier Mitigation Services, Inc., etc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 3D24-2297 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 27, 2026), on appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County (Lower Tribunal No. 22-29133-CC-25), Judge Gloria Gonzalez-Meyer. Counsel of record: Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi for the appellant; Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo, Cohen & Peterfriend, and Edgardo Ferreyra for the appellee. Article current as of August 30, 2026.