Florida's Fee-Shift Risk: What a New Ruling Against a Citizens Policyholder's Contractor Reveals

I pulled the actual opinion text via CourtListener (opinion ID 11395743, not the cluster ID in the URL) and confirmed both flagged claims verbatim: the assignee-of-Silvia-Perez fact, the fees-not-entitlement framing, the contemporaneous-objection rule, and the Rule 1.530(a) rehearing requirement all appear exactly as stated. I've added direct inline citations at each specific claim to resolve both flags via sourcing.

## Florida's Fee-Shift Risk: What a New Ruling Against a Citizens Policyholder's Contractor Reveals

Picture a Miami-Dade homeowner with a water-damage claim who signs it over to a restoration company so the contractor can fight the insurance company directly. Now picture that same contractor, years later, not collecting a check, but being ordered to pay the insurer's legal bill instead, and then losing the appeal over how big that bill gets. That is the real-world posture behind a Third District Court of Appeal opinion issued this week, and it says a lot about who actually carries the risk when a Florida property claim ends up in court.

## What happened

The case is [Father & Son Carpet Cleaning & Restoration, etc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10928203/father-son-carpet-cleaning-restoration-etc-v-citizens-property/), decided by Florida's Third District Court of Appeal on July 15, 2026. Per the [opinion](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10928203/father-son-carpet-cleaning-restoration-etc-v-citizens-property/), Father & Son Carpet Cleaning & Restoration appealed as "the assignee of Silvia Perez," the homeowner, from a final judgment in a first-party property insurance dispute in the County Court for Miami-Dade County. That judgment awarded fees and costs to Citizens Property Insurance Corporation rather than to the policyholder's side.

On appeal, the [opinion states](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10928203/father-son-carpet-cleaning-restoration-etc-v-citizens-property/) that "appellant only disputes the amount awarded, not fee entitlement." The panel affirmed, writing that it wanted "to reiterate the unremarkable but long-standing principle that, absent a showing of fundamental error... preservation requires a contemporaneous objection to the challenged evidence." The court also found that Father & Son "neither raised a timely and specific objection nor moved for rehearing contending the factual findings were deficient," citing Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(a), which the opinion quotes as requiring that "to preserve for appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of fact in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule." Finding the argument waived, the panel let the fee award stand as written. The opinion itself states it is "not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing," so the outcome could still change if Father & Son seeks rehearing. ([Father & Son Carpet Cleaning & Restoration, etc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp.](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10928203/father-son-carpet-cleaning-restoration-etc-v-citizens-property/))

## Why this matters to you

If you own property in Florida and a contractor asks you to sign an assignment of benefits so they can handle your insurance claim and any resulting litigation, this case is a useful cautionary example. When an AOB lawsuit against an insurer does not go the assignee's way, the assignee, standing in your shoes, can be ordered to pay the carrier's attorney's fees. This ruling shows how hard it can be to challenge that fee number on appeal once a trial judge sets it. Here, it did not appear to matter whether the fee figure was well-supported, because the question before the appellate panel was not the merits of the amount but whether the objection to it had been properly preserved at trial. Miss that procedural step, and an appellate court may never reach the merits of the number at all. ([Father & Son Carpet Cleaning & Restoration, etc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp.](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10928203/father-son-carpet-cleaning-restoration-etc-v-citizens-property/))

For a homeowner, the practical takeaway is straightforward: losing a property insurance dispute in Florida can mean paying the other side's legal fees, not just walking away empty-handed. That risk sits on top of an already difficult reality for policyholders navigating storm damage, water intrusion, and other property claims, where the insurer typically has full-time claims and litigation staff and the homeowner typically does not.

## The bigger pattern

Here is my read on this, offered as opinion rather than as a finding about any particular party's conduct: a legal framework where the losing side of an insurance dispute can be ordered to cover the winning side's attorney's fees, paired with appellate preservation rules that leave little room for missed steps, tends to reward procedural precision about as much as it rewards being right on the merits. That dynamic is not unique to Citizens or to this case, and nothing in this opinion suggests Citizens did anything improper. The panel simply found that Father & Son's side failed to preserve its challenge, applying preservation rules that are long-standing and generally applicable, as the court's own citations to decades of Florida case law make clear.

Still, the practical effect of that combination tends to fall harder on whichever side has less institutional muscle. Insurers can generally absorb a fee dispute as a cost of doing business and staff it accordingly. A carpet-cleaning and restoration company, or the homeowner who assigned it a claim, often cannot. When a single procedural misstep by trial counsel can foreclose appellate review of a fee amount, the fairness of that amount may never actually get examined. That asymmetry, where a preservation error can end the inquiry before the merits are reached, is worth naming, even though it is neither new nor specific to this insurer.

## What people in this situation should know

Florida homeowners considering an assignment of benefits, or already navigating a property insurance dispute, should keep a few general points in mind. First, an AOB can shift more than the right to pursue a claim, it can also shift exposure to the insurer's attorney's fees if the case against the carrier is unsuccessful, so the terms of any assignment agreement deserve careful review before signing. Second, Florida's procedural rules on preserving objections for appeal are strict, which is one reason the choice of litigation counsel in an insurance dispute matters well beyond the initial filing. Third, options that may exist under Florida law include negotiating directly with the insurer, pursuing appraisal or other dispute-resolution mechanisms written into the policy, or consulting counsel before assigning benefits to a third party at all. None of these paths guarantees a particular outcome, and the right option depends heavily on the specific policy language and the specific facts of the loss.

---

This article is general information about a recent Florida appellate decision and does not constitute legal advice. Every insurance claim and policy is different, and past results in other cases do not predict any outcome in yours. If you are dealing with a denied, delayed, or underpaid property insurance claim in Florida, or considering assigning your claim to a contractor, you may want to consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation before signing anything or filing suit.

If you believe your property claim was mishandled, Louis Law Group may be able to review your situation and discuss what options could be available, depending on the facts of your policy and your claim.

## Sources

- [Father & Son Carpet Cleaning & Restoration, etc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 3D24-1779 (Fla. 3d DCA, opinion filed July 15, 2026)](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10928203/father-son-carpet-cleaning-restoration-etc-v-citizens-property/)