Super Green Air Control, LLC A/A/O Karen Roshell v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2024-3044
                 _____________________________

SUPER GREEN AIR CONTROL,
LLC, a/a/o KAREN ROSHELL,

    Appellant,

    v.

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________


On appeal from the County Court for Escambia County.
Ronald Scott Ritchie, Judge.


                          May 6, 2026

KELSEY, J.

     Super Green Air Control (the Contractor), appeals a final
order dismissing its action seeking payment for services rendered
to an insured of Appellee, Universal Property and Casualty
Insurance Company (the Insurer). The insured home sustained
damage from Hurricane Sally, in September of 2020. The insured
homeowner hired the Contractor to test for mold and, if found,
clear the home. The insured executed an assignment of benefits
(AOB) authorizing the Contractor to undertake the necessary work
and bill it to the Insurer. The issue is whether the insured
homeowner’s AOB to the Contractor satisfied the governing
requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes (2022).
     Our standard of review is de novo. See Air Quality Experts
Corp. v. Fam. Sec. Ins. Co., 351 So. 3d 32, 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
(applying de novo review under comparable facts). At the motion-
to-dismiss stage, our review includes both the four corners of the
complaint and its attachments. See Santiago v. Mauna Loa Inv.,
LLC, 189 So. 3d 752, 756 (Fla. 2016). We find that the AOB
satisfied the statute, and reverse and remand for further
proceedings on the Contractor’s claim.

     Section 627.7152 requires an assignment agreement to “[b]e
in writing and executed by and between the assignor and the
assignee” and “[c]ontain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate
of the services to be performed by the assignee.”
§ 627.7152(2)(a)1.4., Fla. Stat. “An assignment agreement that
does not comply with this subsection is invalid and unenforceable.”
§ 627.7152(2)(d), Fla. Stat.

     In the AOB before us, the insured acknowledged receipt of the
Contractor’s “written, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be
performed,” tracking the language of section 627.7152(2). A
separate document dated the same date as the AOB and titled
“Invoice” referenced the claim number the insurer had already
designated for the homeowner’s claims, and listed two charges.
The first was titled “Protocol,” described as “Environmental
Testing:     Limited     visual    observations,     multi-location
environmental sampling and report. If additional samples are
required, they will be billed at $95 per each additional sample.”
This work was priced at $995. The second charge was titled
“Clearance,” and again described as “Environmental Testing:
Limited visual observations, multi-location environmental
sampling and report.” This item was priced at $795, and the
combined total invoiced was $1,790. The trial court accepted the
Insurer’s argument that this invoice was facially invalid under the
statute in describing the contemplated work, but we disagree.

     We construe the Contractor’s invoice in pari materia with the
related AOB contract of the same date. See Kidwell Grp., LLC v.
Safepoint Ins. Co., 376 So. 3d 48, 51–52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
(accepting contractor’s comparable contract and approving use of
two documents—a contract and an invoice—bearing the same


                                 2
date, and incorporated together). Both the invoice and the AOB list
the insured’s individual name and residence, by street address;
and both include the claim number the Insurer had already
created. The AOB expressly references the invoice of the same
date, and elaborates on the mold-related services needed due to
water damage, which we find legally sufficient. See id. at 52
(holding that invoice satisfied the statute by describing the service
to be provided and cost, and did not require separate execution).

     The invoice also provides legally sufficient information. The
first section, titled “Protocol,” states what the Contractor will do,
and the reference to “additional samples” provides further context
and clarity: the Contractor will search, take samples, and test for
problems in multiple areas of the home as needed. The second
section, titled “Clearance,” repeats the “environmental testing”
language from the “Protocol” section, but is not fatally flawed in
doing so as the Insurer mistakenly argues. In the context of the
facts then known to the contracting parties and obvious from the
context, it references the next step after any problems are
identified: they will be “cleared.” Finally, contrary to the Insurer’s
argument that the paperwork was flawed for failing to state the
number of “units” subject to the proposed work, there is no
evidence of multiple “units” at the insured’s address—a fact that
would be well-known to the Insurer—so there would be no reason
to reference “per-unit” work in this case. See MVP Plumbing, Inc.
v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 359 So. 3d 885, 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
(accepting as valid an assignment that, while not expressly
mentioning number of units, clearly contemplated a single
service).

     The documents adequately complied with the statutory
requirements. Perhaps two teams of lawyers poring over such
documents in advance for their respective clients would write the
contract/invoice differently, but that is not an appropriate
standard for an ad-hoc repair agreement between a homeowner
and a contractor, particularly where the homeowner does not
allege the agreement is invalid. See Well Done Mitigation, LLC v.
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 416 So. 3d 369–70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
(interpreting statute to protect contractor’s “ability to receive fair
compensation for its work pursuant to an otherwise valid
assignment agreement”). We find that the documents satisfy the


                                  3
statute, and therefore the Contractor is entitled to proceed with its
claim on remand.

    REVERSED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROBERTS, J., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


William Derek Mueller and Elliot Burt Kula of Kula & Associates,
P.A., Miami; Amy E. Ruiz and Steven Jon Getman of Ruiz Getman
Law, PLLC, Miami, for Appellant.

Kara Rockenbach Link and David Andrew Noel of Link &
Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; Kristina Hatem Kamel of
Farah & Farah, Middleburg, for Appellee.




                                 4