assignment of rights to claim

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

An assignment of a legal claim occurs when one party (the “assignor” ) transfers its rights in a cause of action to another party (the “assignee” ). 1 Footnote Black’s Law Dictionary 136 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “assignment” as “the transfer of rights or property” ). The Supreme Court has held that a private litigant may have standing to sue to redress an injury to another party when the injured party has assigned at least a portion of its claim for damages from that injury to the litigant. The Supreme Court in the 2000 case Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens held that private individuals may have Article III standing to bring a qui tam civil action in federal court under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) on behalf of the federal government if authorized to do so. 2 Footnote 529 U.S. 765, 768, 778 (2000) . The FCA imposes civil liability upon “any person” who, among other things, knowingly presents to the federal government a false or fraudulent claim for payment. 3 Footnote 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) . To encourage citizens to enforce the Act, in certain circumstances, a private individual, known as a “relator,” may bring a civil action for violations of the Act. Such plaintiffs sue under the name of the United States and may receive a share of any recovered proceeds from the action. 4 Footnote Id. § 3730(d)(1)–(2) . Under the FCA, the relator is not merely the agent of the United States but an individual with an interest in the lawsuit itself. 5 Footnote Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. , 529 U.S. at 772 ( “For the portion of the recovery retained by the relator . . . some explanation of standing other than agency for the Government must be identified.” ) (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730 ).

Ordinarily, if the relator’s financial interest in the outcome of the case were merely a byproduct of the suit itself, there would be no injury sufficient for standing. 6 Footnote Id. at 772–73 ( “An interest unrelated to injury in fact is insufficient to give a plaintiff standing. . . . A qui tam relator has suffered no [invasion of a legally protected right]—indeed, the ‘right’ he seeks to vindicate does not even fully materialize until the litigation is completed and the relator prevails.” ) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has held that a litigant’s interest in recovering attorneys’ fees or the costs of bringing suit by itself normally does not confer standing to sue. E.g. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 107 (1998) ( “The litigation must give the plaintiff some other benefit besides reimbursement of costs that are a byproduct of the litigation itself.” ); Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 70–71 (1986) ( “[T]he mere fact that continued adjudication would provide a remedy for an injury that is only a byproduct of the suit itself does not mean that the injury is cognizable under Art. III.” ). In Stevens , however, the Supreme Court recognized a distinction that confers standing upon qui tam plaintiffs in FCA cases. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Court, determined that assignments of claims are distinguishable from cases in which a litigant has a mere financial interest in the outcome of the suit because the assignee-plaintiff actually owns a stake in the dispute as a legal matter. 7 Footnote Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. , 529 U.S. at 773 . Justice Scalia drew support for this distinction from the long-standing historical practice of the government assigning a portion of its damages claim to a private party and allowing that party to assert the injury suffered by the federal government as a representative of the United States. 8 Footnote Id. at 774, 778 The Court noted the “long tradition of qui tam actions in England and the American colonies,” 9 Footnote Id. concluding that “Article III’s restriction of the judicial power to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies’ is properly understood to mean ‘cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process.’” 10 Footnote Id. Although the Court held that the relator had standing to sue under the qui tam provision, it ultimately determined that the plaintiff could not maintain the action against a state agency for allegedly submitting false grant claims to the EPA because states were not “persons” subject to liability under the False Claims Act. Id. at 787 .

Eight years after deciding Stevens , the Supreme Court again found that an assignee of a claim had standing, even when the assignee had promised to remit all of the money it recovered in the proceedings to the assignor. 11 Footnote Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc. , 554 U.S. 269 , 271 (2008) . In Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. , payphone operators had assigned their legal claims for money owed to them by long-distance communications carriers to third-party collection agencies. 12 Footnote Id. at 271–72 . The agencies were authorized to bring suit on behalf of the payphone operators and promised to pay all of the proceeds of the litigation to the payphone operators for a fee. 13 Footnote Id. at 272 . The Court held that these collection agencies had standing to pursue the operators’ claims because of the long history of courts’ acceptance of such claims. 14 Footnote Id. at 273–75 . The Court noted that “federal courts routinely entertain suits which will result in relief for parties that are not themselves directly bringing suit. Trustees bring suits to benefit their trusts; guardians ad litem bring suits to benefit their wards; receivers bring suit to benefit their receiverships; assignees in bankruptcy bring suit to benefit bankrupt estates; executors bring suit to benefit testator estates; and so forth.” Id. at 287–88 . Assignment was sufficient to transfer the injury to the collections agencies, and the injury to the operators that had been transferred to the collection agencies would be redressed by a favorable judicial decision, even if the agencies would subsequently pay all of the proceeds to the operators. 15 Footnote Id. at 286–87 ( “[I]f the [collection agencies] prevail in this litigation, the long-distance carriers would write a check to [them] for the amount of dial-around compensation owed. What does it matter what the [agencies] do with the money afterward?” ).

The Stevens and Sprint cases could have broader implications for Article III standing doctrine, as they suggest a way in which the constitutional limitations on standing may be bypassed through the assignment of rights to a third party. 16 Footnote See also ArtIII.S2.C1.6.4.3 Particularized Injury. For instance, if Congress enacts a federal statute recognizing an injury to the federal government that otherwise satisfies Article III’s requirements, it may assign a portion of its claim to a private party, thereby potentially giving that plaintiff standing to sue as a representative of the United States. 17 Footnote See Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. , 529 U.S. at 773 . This is essentially the operation of the False Claims Act. 18 Footnote 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733 . However, it is unclear whether every such statute would necessarily resolve all Article III standing concerns. In Stevens and Sprint , the Court gave significant weight to the lengthy history of courts recognizing the types of assignments at issue when determining that the litigants in those cases had standing to sue. 19 Footnote See id. at 774, 778 ; Sprint Commc’ns Co. , 554 U.S. at 273–75 . Moreover, there may be a number of concerns about the constitutionality and practicality of using assignments to delegate core government functions (e.g., criminal prosecutions) to private parties when courts have not historically recognized claims based on such assignments, including concerns about interference with the Executive Branch’s Article II powers and prosecutorial discretion. 20 Footnote See Heather Elliott , Congress’s Inability to Solve Standing Problems , 91 B.U. L. Rev. 159 , 195–204 (2011) (questioning whether Congress’s assignment of claims to citizen suitors in order to confer standing would be constitutional or practical).

When Assigning the Right to Pursue Relief, Always Remember to Assign Title to, Or Ownership in, The Claim

• Posted on: Oct 4 2016

Whether a party has standing to bring a lawsuit is often considered through the constitutional lens of justiciability – that is, whether there is a “case or controversy” between the plaintiff and the defendant “within the meaning of Art. III.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). To have Article III standing, “the plaintiff [must have] ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant [its] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers on [its] behalf.” Id. at 498–99 (quoting Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).

To show a personal stake in the litigation, the plaintiff must establish three things: First, he/she has sustained an “injury in fact” that is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the injury has to be caused in some way by the defendant’s action or omission. Id . Finally, a favorable resolution of the case is “likely” to redress the injury. Id . at 561.

When a person or entity receives an assignment of claims, the question becomes whether he/she can show a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation, i.e. , a case and controversy “of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process.’” Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 285 (2008) (quoting Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 777–78 (2000)).

To assign a claim effectively, the claim’s owner “must manifest an intention to make the assignee the owner of the claim.” Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc. , 106 F.3d 11, 17 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). A would-be assignor need not use any particular language to validly assign its claim “so long as the language manifests [the assignor’s] intention to transfer at least title or ownership , i.e., to accomplish ‘a completed transfer of the entire interest of the assignor in the particular subject of assignment.’” Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). An assignor’s grant of, for example, “‘the power to commence and prosecute to final consummation or compromise any suits, actions or proceedings,’” id. at 18 (quoting agreements that were the subject of that appeal), may validly create a power of attorney, but that language would not validly assign a claim, because it does “not purport to transfer title or ownership” of one. Id.

On September 15, 2016, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, issued a decision addressing the foregoing principles holding that one of the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims because the assignment of the right to pursue remedies did not constitute the assignment of claims.  Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecom., S.à.r.l. , 2016 NY Slip Op. 06051.

BACKGROUND :

Cortlandt involved four related actions in which the plaintiffs – Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp. (“Cortlandt”), an assignee for collection, and Wilmington Trust Co. (“WTC”), an indenture trustee – sought payment of the principal and interest on notes issued in public offerings. Each action alleged that Hellas Telecommunications, S.a.r.l. and its affiliated entities, the issuer and guarantor of the notes, transferred the proceeds of the notes by means of fraudulent conveyances to two private equity firms, Apax Partners, LLP/TPG Capital, L.P. – the other defendants named in the actions.

The defendants moved to dismiss the actions on numerous grounds, including that Cortlandt, as the assignee for collection, lacked standing to pursue the actions. To cure the claimed standing defect, Cortlandt and WTC moved to amend the complaints to add SPQR Capital (Cayman) Ltd. (“SPQR”), the assignor of note interests to Cortlandt, as a plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleged that, inter alia , SPQR entered into an addendum to the assignment with Cortlandt pursuant to which Cortlandt received “all right, title, and interest” in the notes.

The Motion Court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that, among other things, Cortlandt lacked standing to maintain the actions and that, although the standing defect was not jurisdictional and could be cured, the plaintiffs failed to cure the defect in the proposed amended complaint. Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecom., S.à.r.l. , 47 Misc. 3d 544 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 2014).

The Motion Court’s Ruling

As an initial matter, the Motion Court cited to the reasoning of the court in Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch , No. 12 Civ. 9351 (JPO), 2013 WL 3762882, 2013 US Dist. LEXIS 100741 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2013) (the “SDNY Action”), a related action that was dismissed on standing grounds.  The complaint in the SDNY Action, like the complaints before the Motion Court, alleged that Cortlandt was the assignee of the notes with a “right to collect” the principal and interest due on the notes. As evidence of these rights, Cortlandt produced an assignment, similar to the ones in the New York Supreme Court actions, which provided that as the assignee with the right to collect, Cortlandt could collect the principal and interest due on the notes and pursue all remedies with respect thereto. In dismissing the SDNY Action, Judge Oetken found that the complaint did not allege, and the assignment did not provide, that “title to or ownership of the claims has been assigned to Cortlandt.” 2013 WL 3762882, at *2, 2013 US Dist. LEXIS 100741, at *7. The court also found that the grant of a power of attorney (that is, the power to sue on and collect on a claim) was “not the equivalent of an assignment of ownership” of a claim. 2013 WL 3762882 at *1, 2013 US Dist. LEXIS 100741 at *5. Consequently, because the assignment did not transfer title or ownership of the claim to Cortlandt, there was no case or controversy for the court to decide ( i.e. , Cortlandt could not prove that it had an interest in the outcome of the litigation).

The Motion Court “concur[red] with” Judge Oeken’s decision, holding that “the assignments to Cortlandt … were assignments of a right of collection, not of title to the claims, and are accordingly insufficient as a matter of law to confer standing upon Cortlandt.”  In so holding, the Motion Court observed that although New York does not have an analogue to Article III, it is nevertheless analogous in its requirement that a plaintiff have a stake in the outcome of the litigation:

New York does not have an analogue to article III. However, the New York standards for standing are analogous, as New York requires “[t]he existence of an injury in fact—an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated.”

Under long-standing New York law, an assignee is the “real party in interest” where the “title to the specific claim” is passed to the assignee, even if the assignee may ultimately be liable to another for the amounts collected.

Citations omitted.

Based upon the foregoing, the Motion Court found that Cortlandt lacked standing to pursue the actions.

Cortlandt appealed the dismissal. With regard to the Motion Court’s dismissal of Cortlandt on standing grounds, the First Department affirmed the Motion Court’s ruling, holding:

The [IAS] court correctly found that plaintiff Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp. lacks standing to bring the claims in Index Nos. 651693/10 and 653357/11 because, while the assignments to Cortlandt for the PIK notes granted it “full rights to collect amounts of principal and interest due on the Notes, and to pursue all remedies,” they did not transfer “title or ownership” of the claims.

The Takeaway

Cortlandt limits the ability of an assignee to pursue a lawsuit when the assignee has no direct interest in the outcome of the litigation. By requiring an assignee to have legal title to, or an ownership interest in, the claim, the Court made clear that only a valid assignment of a claim will suffice to fulfill the injury-in-fact requirement. Cortlandt also makes clear that a power of attorney permitting another to conduct litigation on behalf of others as their attorney-in-fact is not a valid assignment and does not confer a legal title to the claims it brings. Therefore, as the title of this article warns: when assigning the right to pursue relief, always remember to assign title to, or ownership in, the claim.

Tagged with: Business Law

Assignment Of Rights Agreement

Jump to section, what is an assignment of rights agreement.

​​An assignment of rights agreement is a written document in which one party, the assignor, assigns to another party all or part of their rights under an existing contract. The most common example of this would be when someone wants to sell their shares of stock in a company.

When you buy shares from someone else (the seller), they agree to transfer them over and give up any control they had on that share. This way, another party can take ownership without going through the trouble of trying to buy the whole company themselves.

Common Sections in Assignment Of Rights Agreements

Below is a list of common sections included in Assignment Of Rights Agreements. These sections are linked to the below sample agreement for you to explore.

Assignment Of Rights Agreement Sample

Reference : Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database, EX-99.(H)(7) 5 dex99h7.htm FORM OF ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT , Viewed December 20, 2021, View Source on SEC .

Who Helps With Assignment Of Rights Agreements?

Lawyers with backgrounds working on assignment of rights agreements work with clients to help. Do you need help with an assignment of rights agreement?

Post a project  in ContractsCounsel's marketplace to get free bids from lawyers to draft, review, or negotiate assignment of rights agreements. All lawyers are vetted by our team and peer reviewed by our customers for you to explore before hiring.

ContractsCounsel is not a law firm, and this post should not be considered and does not contain legal advice. To ensure the information and advice in this post are correct, sufficient, and appropriate for your situation, please consult a licensed attorney. Also, using or accessing ContractsCounsel's site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and ContractsCounsel.

Meet some of our Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers

With 20 years of transactional law experience, I have represented corporate giants like AT&T and T-Mobile, as well as mid-size and small businesses across a wide spectrum of legal needs, including business purchase agreements, entity formation, employment matters, commercial and residential real estate transactions, partnership agreements, online business terms and policy drafting, and business and corporate compliance. Recognizing the complexities of the legal landscape, I am dedicated to providing accessible and transparent legal services by offering a flat fee structure, making high-quality legal representation available to all. My extensive knowledge and commitment to client success establishes me as a trusted advisor for businesses of all sizes.

Business-minded, analytical and detail-oriented attorney with broad experience in real estate and corporate law, with an emphasis on retail leasing, sales and acquisitions and real estate finance. Extensive experience in drafting complex commercial contracts, including purchase and sale contracts for businesses in a wide variety of industries. Also experienced in corporate formation and governance, mergers and acquisitions, employment and franchise law. Admitted to practice in Colorado since 2001, Bar No. 33427.

Attorney Garrett Mayleben's practice is focused on representing small businesses and the working people that make them profitable. He represents companies in structuring and negotiating merger, acquisition, and real estate transactions; guides emerging companies through the startup phase; and consults with business owners on corporate governance matters. Garrett also practices in employment law, copyright and trademark law, and civil litigation. Though industry agnostic, Garrett has particular experience representing medical, dental, veterinary, and chiropractic practices in various business transactions, transitions, and the structuring of related management service organizations (MSOs).

Maria is a family law attorney dedicated to helping you navigate the complexities of personal and family legal matters with compassion and efficiency. From divorce and child custody disputes to marital agreements and domestic violence cases, Maria provides personalized legal solutions tailored to your unique circumstances. With her extensive knowledge of family law, she strives to protect your rights, advocate for your best interests, and empathetically guide you towards a positive resolution. Trust Maria to be your reliable advocate during these difficult times, ensuring that your family's well-being is safeguarded every step of the way. Let's work together to find the best legal path forward for you and your loved ones.

Experienced telecommunications, software and SaaS contracts attorney with past litigation experience available to review, negotiate and analyze contracts for business of all sizes.

I was born in Charlotte, NC and primarily raised in Dalton, GA. I graduated from Dalton High School in 1981 where I was in the band and the French club. I also participated in Junior Achievement and was a member of Tri-Hi-Y. New York granted my first license as an attorney in 1990. I then worked as a partner in the firm of Broda and Burnett for almost 10 years and as a solo practitioner for about 2 years. I worked as a general practitioner (primarily doing divorces, child abuse cases, custody matters and other family law matters, bankruptcy, real estate closings, contracts, taxes, etc.) and as a Law Guardian (attorney who represents children). I obtained my license in Tennessee in December 2002 and began working as an associate at Blackburn & McCune from February of 2003 until May of 2005. At Blackburn & McCune I provided telephone legal counsel to Prepaid Legal Services (now known as Legal Shield) members, wrote letters for members, reviewed contracts, attended hearings on traffic ticket matters and represented members with regard to IRS matters. In May of 2005, I went to work for North American Satellite Corporation where I served as Corporate Counsel. I handled a number of taxation issues, reviewed and wrote contracts, counseled the CEO and Board of Directors on avoiding legal problems and resolving disputes, and represented employees on a variety of matters, and also assisted the company for a period of time as its Director of Accounting. In 2010, I volunteered as a law clerk for Judge Robert Adams in Dalton, Georgia until I obtained my license to practice law in Georgia in November, 2010. In Georgia, I have handled a variety of family law matters, drafted wills, advanced health care directives, power of attorney documents, reviewed and drafted contracts, and conducted real estate closings. Currently, I accept cases in the areas of adoption, child support, custody, divorce, legitimation and other family law matters. In addition, I handle name change petitions and draft wills.

Michigan and USPTO licensed attorney with over 20 years of experience on counseling clients in the fields of intellectual property, transactional law, technology involvement, negotiations, and business litigation.

Find the best lawyer for your project

Quick, user friendly and one of the better ways I've come across to get ahold of lawyers willing to take new clients.

How It Works

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

Business lawyers by top cities

• Austin Business Lawyers
• Boston Business Lawyers
• Chicago Business Lawyers
• Dallas Business Lawyers
• Denver Business Lawyers
• Houston Business Lawyers
• Los Angeles Business Lawyers
• New York Business Lawyers
• Phoenix Business Lawyers
• San Diego Business Lawyers
• Tampa Business Lawyers

Assignment Of Rights Agreement lawyers by city

• Austin Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• Boston Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• Chicago Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• Dallas Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• Denver Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• Houston Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• Los Angeles Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• New York Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• Phoenix Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• San Diego Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers
• Tampa Assignment Of Rights Agreement Lawyers

Contracts Counsel was incredibly helpful and easy to use. I submitted a project for a lawyer's help within a day I had received over 6 proposals from qualified lawyers. I submitted a bid that works best for my business and we went forward with the project.

I never knew how difficult it was to obtain representation or a lawyer, and ContractsCounsel was EXACTLY the type of service I was hoping for when I was in a pinch. Working with their service was efficient, effective and made me feel in control. Thank you so much and should I ever need attorney services down the road, I'll certainly be a repeat customer.

I got 5 bids within 24h of posting my project. I choose the person who provided the most detailed and relevant intro letter, highlighting their experience relevant to my project. I am very satisfied with the outcome and quality of the two agreements that were produced, they actually far exceed my expectations.

Want to speak to someone?

Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

• assignments basic law

Assignments: The Basic Law

The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States.

As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the term but often are not aware or fully aware of what the terms entail. The concept of assignment of rights and obligations is one of those simple concepts with wide ranging ramifications in the contractual and business context and the law imposes severe restrictions on the validity and effect of assignment in many instances. Clear contractual provisions concerning assignments and rights should be in every document and structure created and this article will outline why such drafting is essential for the creation of appropriate and effective contracts and structures.

The reader should first read the article on Limited Liability Entities in the United States and Contracts since the information in those articles will be assumed in this article.

Basic Definitions and Concepts:

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the “assignor” to another party called the “assignee.” The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment. The assignment of rights under a contract usually completely transfers the rights to the assignee to receive the benefits accruing under the contract. Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court , 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950).

An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the underlying contract or lease. Where assignments are permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract but may merely assign the rights at that time. However, an assignment cannot have any adverse effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it diminish the chance of the other party receiving complete performance. The assignor normally remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary by the other party to the contract.

The effect of a valid assignment is to remove privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Privity is usually defined as a direct and immediate contractual relationship. See Merchants case above.

Further, for the assignment to be effective in most jurisdictions, it must occur in the present. One does not normally assign a future right; the assignment vests immediate rights and obligations.

No specific language is required to create an assignment so long as the assignor makes clear his/her intent to assign identified contractual rights to the assignee. Since expensive litigation can erupt from ambiguous or vague language, obtaining the correct verbiage is vital. An agreement must manifest the intent to transfer rights and can either be oral or in writing and the rights assigned must be certain.

Note that an assignment of an interest is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the assignee. The assignment operates to transfer to the assignee all of the rights, title, or interest of the assignor in the thing assigned. A transfer of all rights, title, and interests conveys everything that the assignor owned in the thing assigned and the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Knott v. McDonald’s Corp ., 985 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

The parties must intend to effectuate an assignment at the time of the transfer, although no particular language or procedure is necessary. As long ago as the case of National Reserve Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co ., 17 Cal. 2d 827 (Cal. 1941), the court held that in determining what rights or interests pass under an assignment, the intention of the parties as manifested in the instrument is controlling.

The intent of the parties to an assignment is a question of fact to be derived not only from the instrument executed by the parties but also from the surrounding circumstances. When there is no writing to evidence the intention to transfer some identifiable property, claim, or right, it is necessary to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances and parties’ acts to ascertain their intentions. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)

The general rule applicable to assignments of choses in action is that an assignment, unless there is a contract to the contrary, carries with it all securities held by the assignor as collateral to the claim and all rights incidental thereto and vests in the assignee the equitable title to such collateral securities and incidental rights. An unqualified assignment of a contract or chose in action, however, with no indication of the intent of the parties, vests in the assignee the assigned contract or chose and all rights and remedies incidental thereto.

More examples: In Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs ., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998), the court held that the assignee of a party to a subordination agreement is entitled to the benefits and is subject to the burdens of the agreement. In Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Eno , 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930), the court held that the mere assignment of all sums due in and of itself creates no different or other liability of the owner to the assignee than that which existed from the owner to the assignor.

And note that even though an assignment vests in the assignee all rights, remedies, and contingent benefits which are incidental to the thing assigned, those which are personal to the assignor and for his sole benefit are not assigned. Rasp v. Hidden Valley Lake, Inc ., 519 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, if the underlying agreement provides that a service can only be provided to X, X cannot assign that right to Y.

Novation Compared to Assignment:

Although the difference between a novation and an assignment may appear narrow, it is an essential one. “Novation is a act whereby one party transfers all its obligations and benefits under a contract to a third party.” In a novation, a third party successfully substitutes the original party as a party to the contract. “When a contract is novated, the other contracting party must be left in the same position he was in prior to the novation being made.”

A sublease is the transfer when a tenant retains some right of reentry onto the leased premises. However, if the tenant transfers the entire leasehold estate, retaining no right of reentry or other reversionary interest, then the transfer is an assignment. The assignor is normally also removed from liability to the landlord only if the landlord consents or allowed that right in the lease. In a sublease, the original tenant is not released from the obligations of the original lease.

Equitable Assignments:

An equitable assignment is one in which one has a future interest and is not valid at law but valid in a court of equity. In National Bank of Republic v. United Sec. Life Ins. & Trust Co. , 17 App. D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 1900), the court held that to constitute an equitable assignment of a chose in action, the following has to occur generally: anything said written or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of an antecedent debt, to place a chose in action or fund out of the control of the owner, and appropriate it to or in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment. Thus, an agreement, between a debtor and a creditor, that the debt shall be paid out of a specific fund going to the debtor may operate as an equitable assignment.

In Egyptian Navigation Co. v. Baker Invs. Corp. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30804 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), the court stated that an equitable assignment occurs under English law when an assignor, with an intent to transfer his/her right to a chose in action, informs the assignee about the right so transferred.

An executory agreement or a declaration of trust are also equitable assignments if unenforceable as assignments by a court of law but enforceable by a court of equity exercising sound discretion according to the circumstances of the case. Since California combines courts of equity and courts of law, the same court would hear arguments as to whether an equitable assignment had occurred. Quite often, such relief is granted to avoid fraud or unjust enrichment.

Note that obtaining an assignment through fraudulent means invalidates the assignment. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Walker v. Rich , 79 Cal. App. 139 (Cal. App. 1926). If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. See our article on Transfers to Defraud Creditors .

But note that the motives that prompted an assignor to make the transfer will be considered as immaterial and will constitute no defense to an action by the assignee, if an assignment is considered as valid in all other respects.

Enforceability of Assignments:

Whether a right under a contract is capable of being transferred is determined by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. The validity and effect of an assignment is determined by the law of the place of assignment. The validity of an assignment of a contractual right is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the assignment and the parties.

In some jurisdictions, the traditional conflict of laws rules governing assignments has been rejected and the law of the place having the most significant contacts with the assignment applies. In Downs v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co ., 14 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1964), a wife and her husband separated and the wife obtained a judgment of separation from the husband in New York. The judgment required the husband to pay a certain yearly sum to the wife. The husband assigned 50 percent of his future salary, wages, and earnings to the wife. The agreement authorized the employer to make such payments to the wife.

After the husband moved from New York, the wife learned that he was employed by an employer in Massachusetts. She sent the proper notice and demanded payment under the agreement. The employer refused and the wife brought an action for enforcement. The court observed that Massachusetts did not prohibit assignment of the husband’s wages. Moreover, Massachusetts law was not controlling because New York had the most significant relationship with the assignment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the wife.

Therefore, the validity of an assignment is determined by looking to the law of the forum with the most significant relationship to the assignment itself. To determine the applicable law of assignments, the court must look to the law of the state which is most significantly related to the principal issue before it.

Assignment of Contractual Rights:

Generally, the law allows the assignment of a contractual right unless the substitution of rights would materially change the duty of the obligor, materially increase the burden or risk imposed on the obligor by the contract, materially impair the chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the performance to the obligor. Restat 2d of Contracts, § 317(2)(a). This presumes that the underlying agreement is silent on the right to assign.

If the contract specifically precludes assignment, the contractual right is not assignable. Whether a contract is assignable is a matter of contractual intent and one must look to the language used by the parties to discern that intent.

In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the rights and duties under a bilateral executory contract that does not involve personal skill, trust, or confidence may be assigned without the consent of the other party. But note that an assignment is invalid if it would materially alter the other party’s duties and responsibilities. Once an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes all of assignor’s rights. Hence, after a valid assignment, the assignor’s right to performance is extinguished, transferred to assignee, and the assignee possesses the same rights, benefits, and remedies assignor once possessed. Robert Lamb Hart Planners & Architects v. Evergreen, Ltd. , 787 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

On the other hand, an assignee’s right against the obligor is subject to “all of the limitations of the assignor’s right, all defenses thereto, and all set-offs and counterclaims which would have been available against the assignor had there been no assignment, provided that these defenses and set-offs are based on facts existing at the time of the assignment.” See Robert Lamb , case, above.

The power of the contract to restrict assignment is broad. Usually, contractual provisions that restrict assignment of the contract without the consent of the obligor are valid and enforceable, even when there is statutory authorization for the assignment. The restriction of the power to assign is often ineffective unless the restriction is expressly and precisely stated. Anti-assignment clauses are effective only if they contain clear, unambiguous language of prohibition. Anti-assignment clauses protect only the obligor and do not affect the transaction between the assignee and assignor.

Usually, a prohibition against the assignment of a contract does not prevent an assignment of the right to receive payments due, unless circumstances indicate the contrary. Moreover, the contracting parties cannot, by a mere non-assignment provision, prevent the effectual alienation of the right to money which becomes due under the contract.

A contract provision prohibiting or restricting an assignment may be waived, or a party may so act as to be estopped from objecting to the assignment, such as by effectively ratifying the assignment. The power to void an assignment made in violation of an anti-assignment clause may be waived either before or after the assignment. See our article on Contracts.

Noncompete Clauses and Assignments:

Of critical import to most buyers of businesses is the ability to ensure that key employees of the business being purchased cannot start a competing company. Some states strictly limit such clauses, some do allow them. California does restrict noncompete clauses, only allowing them under certain circumstances. A common question in those states that do allow them is whether such rights can be assigned to a new party, such as the buyer of the buyer.

A covenant not to compete, also called a non-competitive clause, is a formal agreement prohibiting one party from performing similar work or business within a designated area for a specified amount of time. This type of clause is generally included in contracts between employer and employee and contracts between buyer and seller of a business.

Many workers sign a covenant not to compete as part of the paperwork required for employment. It may be a separate document similar to a non-disclosure agreement, or buried within a number of other clauses in a contract. A covenant not to compete is generally legal and enforceable, although there are some exceptions and restrictions.

Whenever a company recruits skilled employees, it invests a significant amount of time and training. For example, it often takes years before a research chemist or a design engineer develops a workable knowledge of a company’s product line, including trade secrets and highly sensitive information. Once an employee gains this knowledge and experience, however, all sorts of things can happen. The employee could work for the company until retirement, accept a better offer from a competing company or start up his or her own business.

A covenant not to compete may cover a number of potential issues between employers and former employees. Many companies spend years developing a local base of customers or clients. It is important that this customer base not fall into the hands of local competitors. When an employee signs a covenant not to compete, he or she usually agrees not to use insider knowledge of the company’s customer base to disadvantage the company. The covenant not to compete often defines a broad geographical area considered off-limits to former employees, possibly tens or hundreds of miles.

Another area of concern covered by a covenant not to compete is a potential ‘brain drain’. Some high-level former employees may seek to recruit others from the same company to create new competition. Retention of employees, especially those with unique skills or proprietary knowledge, is vital for most companies, so a covenant not to compete may spell out definite restrictions on the hiring or recruiting of employees.

A covenant not to compete may also define a specific amount of time before a former employee can seek employment in a similar field. Many companies offer a substantial severance package to make sure former employees are financially solvent until the terms of the covenant not to compete have been met.

Because the use of a covenant not to compete can be controversial, a handful of states, including California, have largely banned this type of contractual language. The legal enforcement of these agreements falls on individual states, and many have sided with the employee during arbitration or litigation. A covenant not to compete must be reasonable and specific, with defined time periods and coverage areas. If the agreement gives the company too much power over former employees or is ambiguous, state courts may declare it to be overbroad and therefore unenforceable. In such case, the employee would be free to pursue any employment opportunity, including working for a direct competitor or starting up a new company of his or her own.

It has been held that an employee’s covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another, that a merger does not constitute an assignment of a covenant not to compete, and that a covenant not to compete is enforceable by a successor to the employer where the assignment does not create an added burden of employment or other disadvantage to the employee. However, in some states such as Hawaii, it has also been held that a covenant not to compete is not assignable and under various statutes for various reasons that such covenants are not enforceable against an employee by a successor to the employer. Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp. , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)

It is vital to obtain the relevant law of the applicable state before drafting or attempting to enforce assignment rights in this particular area.

Conclusion:

In the current business world of fast changing structures, agreements, employees and projects, the ability to assign rights and obligations is essential to allow flexibility and adjustment to new situations. Conversely, the ability to hold a contracting party into the deal may be essential for the future of a party. Thus, the law of assignments and the restriction on same is a critical aspect of every agreement and every structure. This basic provision is often glanced at by the contracting parties, or scribbled into the deal at the last minute but can easily become the most vital part of the transaction.

As an example, one client of ours came into the office outraged that his co venturer on a sizable exporting agreement, who had excellent connections in Brazil, had elected to pursue another venture instead and assigned the agreement to a party unknown to our client and without the business contacts our client considered vital. When we examined the handwritten agreement our client had drafted in a restaurant in Sao Paolo, we discovered there was no restriction on assignment whatsoever…our client had not even considered that right when drafting the agreement after a full day of work.

One choses who one does business with carefully…to ensure that one’s choice remains the party on the other side of the contract, one must master the ability to negotiate proper assignment provisions.

Founded in 1939, our law firm combines the ability to represent clients in domestic or international matters with the personal interaction with clients that is traditional to a long established law firm.

Read more about our firm

© 2024, Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser, All rights reserved  | Terms of Use | Site by Bay Design

Assignment of Rights Agreement: Everything You Need to Know

An assignment of rights agreement refers to a situation in which one party, known as the assignor, shifts contract rights to another party, known as assignee. 3 min read updated on February 01, 2023

An assignment of rights agreement refers to a situation in which one party, known as the assignor, shifts contract rights to another party. The party taking on the rights is known as the assignee.

An Assignment of Rights Agreement

The following is an example of an assignment of rights agreement. Dave decides to buy a bicycle from John for $100 and after agreeing on the price, Dave and John draw up a written agreement. Let's suppose that there will be a one week wait before the bicycle is ready for delivery to Dave and before anything is passed between them.

Meanwhile, John accepts that he will transfer his right to be paid $100 from Dave to Rob, in exchange for Rob paying John $90 immediately. Let's assume that John's motivation is an immediate need for cash. In this context, John is regarded as the assignor and Rob is the assignee.

John is the assignor as he is giving the assignment to Rob and Rob is the assignee because he is acquiring the assignment from John. To put it simply, the assignee is the party who gets something. In this case, Rob will receive $100.

Rules of Assignments

Assignments frequently occur in contracts. It's important to note the following points:

• The assignor (e.g. John) is accountable according to the contract unless the parties make an agreement that states otherwise.
• This means that if Dave does not receive the bicycle, he can sue John for it.
• Assignments are allowed in almost every type of agreement unless the contract includes an explicit ban on assignments or unless a specific exception is applicable.
• The assignor does not need to speak to the other contract party in order to create the assignment. For example, John would not need to ask Dave if John can transfer his right to be paid to Rob.

Exceptions Where a Contract Cannot be Assigned

• Some exceptions dictate that a contract cannot be assigned .
• Unenforceable assignments include the following: a personal services agreement, changing the contract duties, changing the material provisions of the agreement (e.g. time, amount, location, etc.).
• An example of a personal services agreement, which cannot be assigned, would be if you decided to employ a particular professional writer to write a book for you.
• That writer would not be allowed to take your payment and then give the work to another writer because you employed that particular writer to write the book, rather than someone else.
• Some kinds of assignments have to be in writing in order to be enforceable such as assignments of actual property (e.g. selling your house), loans, or debts.
• It's best to look at the statute of frauds for more information on the kinds of agreements that must be in writing.

Delegations and Novations

A delegation is very similar to an assignment in terms of what it involves. A delegation takes place when a party moves his or her obligations (or liabilities) under an agreement to a different party. Assignments, on the other hand, involve the transfer of rights.

If the parties in our previous example had created a novation , Rob would be entirely accountable to Dave and John would be clear of responsibility. A novation replaces the earliest party with a new party.

Contract Assignment

An Assignment Agreement can also be called a Contract Assignment. Another example of this would be if you're a contractor who needs assistance finishing a job. You could give those tasks and rights to a subcontractor, but only if the original agreement does not prohibit the assignment of these rights and responsibilities.

Creating an Assignment Agreement

In an Assignment Agreement, it is important to include details such as:

• The name of the person assigning the responsibilities (known as the assignor)
• The name of the of the party who is taking the rights and responsibilities (the assignee)
• The other party to the first agreement (known as the obligor)
• The name of the agreement and its expiration date
• Whether the first contract necessitates the obligor's approval before assigning rights
• The date of the obligor's consent
• When the contract will be put into effect
• Which state's laws will regulate the contract

If you need help with an assignment of rights agreement, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Assignment of Rights Example
• Assignment of Contract Rights
• Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract
• Partial Assignment of Contract
• Assignment Contract Law
• What Is the Definition of Assigns
• Assignment Law
• Assignment Of Contracts
• Legal Assignment
• Delegation vs Assignment

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

Assignment of insurance policies and claims | Practical Law

Assignment of insurance policies and claims

Practical law uk practice note w-031-6021  (approx. 19 pages).

Assignment of Claim after a Loss: What Homeowners Should Know

Let’s start with the basics. If you, as a homeowner, sustain property damage or losses because of a covered event (like a fire, for example), you will need your home repaired. You choose a contractor or restoration company to do the work – but the check from the insurance company has not come through yet, and you need them to start right away. So, what can you do?

You can sign an “assignment of claim,” which assigns your rights (as the policyholder) to benefits and proceeds from the loss, to the company or contractors. In the simplest of terms, the assignment of claim allows your contractor to get paid directly from the insurance company.

What is the anti-transfer clause in insurance?

However, many contractors and purchasers of the damaged property have found themselves in a tight spot over the years, because of something called the anti-transfer clause. As explained on the Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog ,  the anti-transfer clause usually reads something like this: “Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without our written consent except in the case of death of an individual named insured.” Sometimes, the insurance company requires written consent before an assignment of claim can be made.

This clause routinely allows insurers to deny payments to contractors – but it shouldn’t, when an assignment of claim is made post-loss.

What’s the difference between pre-loss vs. post-loss assignments?

The Courts of Tennessee have routinely ruled on behalf of contractors and purchasers who were assigned the claim after the loss occurred. That is because the original assignee – the homeowner – was approved by the insurance company in the first place, and because the damage occurred regardless. There was no additional risk for the insurance company. Therefore, even if the contractor has a long and storied history of rule-breaking (or even criminal activity), the homeowner can assign the claim however he or she chooses; after all, the loss already happened.

Where insurance companies can (and do) have a leg up is for pre-loss assignments. The insurance company underwrote the risk on Bob and Jane Homeowner because it felt confident enough to do so. Bob and Jane cannot assign their policy to another person without the approval of the insurer, even when no loss has occurred.

Even if there is an anti-transfer clause in your policy, the chances are very good that a post-loss assignment cannot be legally denied by your insurer. If it is, seek out an experienced insurance dispute lawyer to help you argue the denial.

One last note for Tennessee policyholders

In some cases, the insurance company may decide that the amount of your loss is worth less than the cost of the renovations for which the contractor is charging. If this happens, you could be on the hook for the remainder of the costs, depending, of course, on the language of the deal with your contractor.

Because of this risk, it’s wise to contact an attorney before making any decisions. Get informed about your rights from the start, and let your lawyer address any potential hiccups along the way. If your insurer lowballs your claim, your attorney can  handle the dispute , to ensure that you are compensated fairly.

At McWherter Scott & Bobbitt, we have spent years fighting against unfair insurance claims policies in Tennessee and Mississippi. Let  Brandon McWherter ,  Jonathan Bobbitt  and  Clint Scott   put their knowledge and experience to work for you. Please call  731-664-1340 or fill out our  contact form . We maintain offices in Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis, Jackson and Knoxville.

Brandon McWherter has dedicated his practice to assisting insurance policyholders with their claims against insurance companies, including claims for bad faith. He is licensed in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Learn More

Assignment of claims

An untraditional approach to combining the claims of plaintiffs; how it differs from class actions, joinder, consolidation, relation and coordination

A large class of plaintiffs engages you to bring a common action against a defendant or set of defendants. As counsel, you resolve to combine the plaintiffs’ various claims into a single lawsuit. In this article, we touch on some of the traditional approaches, such as a class action, joinder, consolidation, relation, and coordination. To that list, we add as an approach the assignment of claims, a procedural vehicle validated by the United States Supreme Court, but not typically employed to combine the claims of numerous plaintiffs.

Class actions

In Hansberry v. Lee (1940) 311 U.S. 32, the United States Supreme Court explained that “[t]he class suit was an invention of equity to enable it to proceed to a decree in suits where the number of those interested in the subject of the litigation is so great that their joinder as parties in conformity to the usual rules of procedure is impracticable. Courts are not infrequently called upon to proceed with causes in which the number of those interested in the litigation is so great as to make difficult or impossible the joinder of all because some are not within the jurisdiction or because their whereabouts is unknown or where if all were made parties to the suit its continued abatement by the death of some would prevent or unduly delay a decree. In such cases where the interests of those not joined are of the same class as the interests of those who are, and where it is considered that the latter fairly represent the former in the prosecution of the litigation of the issues in which all have a common interest, the court will proceed to a decree.” ( Id. at pp. 41-42.)

In California’s state courts, class actions are authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 382, which applies when the issue is “‘one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court.’” ( Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 955, 968; see also, e.g., Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.760-3.771.) “The party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.” ( Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021.) “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.’” ( Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435; see Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq. [Consumers Legal Remedies Act]; cf. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 23(a) [prerequisites for federal class action].)

Parties, acting as co-plaintiffs, can also obtain economies of scale by joining their claims in a single lawsuit. Under California’s permissive joinder statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 378 (section 378), individuals may join in one action as plaintiffs if the following conditions are met:

(a)(1) They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action; or

(2) They have a claim, right, or interest adverse to the defendant in the property or controversy which is the subject of the action.

(b) It is not necessary that each plaintiff be interested as to every cause of action or as to all relief prayed for. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective right to relief.

This strategy of joining multiple persons in one action has been referred to as a “mass action” in some decisions involving numerous plaintiffs. (See Aghaji v. Bank of America, N.A. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1113; Petersen v. Bank of America Corp . (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 238, 240 ( Petersen ); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B) [federal definition of “mass action”].)

In Petersen , for example, 965 plaintiffs who borrowed money from Countrywide Financial Corporation in the mid-2000’s banded together and filed a single lawsuit against Countrywide and related entities. ( Petersen , supra , 232 Cal.App.4th at pp.  242-243.) The plaintiffs alleged Countrywide had developed a strategy to increase its profits by misrepresenting the loan terms and using captive real estate appraisers to provide dishonest appraisals that inflated home prices and induced borrowers to take loans Countrywide knew they could not afford. ( Id. at p. 241.) The plaintiffs alleged Countrywide had no intent to keep these loans, but to bundle and sell them on the secondary market to unsuspecting investors who would bear the risk the borrowers could not repay. ( Id. at pp. 241, 245.) Countrywide and the related defendants demurred on the ground of misjoinder of the plaintiffs in violation of section 378. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed all plaintiffs except the one whose name appeared first in the caption. ( Id . at p. 247.) The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings. ( Id . at p. 256.)

Petersen resolved two questions. First, it concluded the operative pleading alleged wrongs arising out of “‘the same . . . series of transactions’” that would entail litigation of at least one common question of law or fact. ( Petersen, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 241.) The appellate court noted the individual damages among the 965 plaintiffs would vary widely, but the question of liability provided a basis for joining the claims in a single action. ( Id. at p. 253.) Second, the appellate court concluded “California’s procedures governing permissive joinder are up to the task of managing mass actions like this one.” ( Id. at p. 242.)

Consolidation

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a) provides that, “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (See also Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 42.)

There are two types of consolidation. The first is a consolidation for purposes of trial only, when the actions remain otherwise separate. The second is a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, when the actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. ( Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 ( Hamilton ).)

Consolidation is designed to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to the various actions. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleadings, § 341, p. 470.) Unless all parties in the involved cases stipulate, consolidation requires a written, noticed motion (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a); Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 495, 514), and is subject to the trial court’s discretion. ( Hamilton, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1147.)

In a procedure somewhat similar to consolidation, under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a), a pending civil action may be related to other civil actions (whether still pending or already resolved by dismissal or judgment) if the matters “[a]rise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact” or “[a]re likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” ( Id. , rule 3.300(a)(2), (4).) An order to relate cases may be made only after service of a notice on all parties that identifies the potentially related cases. No written motion is required. ( Id ., rule 3.300(h)(1).) The Judicial Council provides a standard form for this purpose. When a trial court agrees the cases listed in the notice are related, all are typically assigned to the trial judge in whose department the first case was filed. ( Id ., rule 3.300(h)(1)(A).)

Related cases are not consolidated cases. Related cases maintain their separate identities but are heard by the same trial judge. Consolidated cases, in contrast, essentially merge and proceed under a single case number.

Coordination

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 404, the Chairperson of the Judicial Council is authorized to coordinate actions filed in different courts that share common questions of fact or law. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.500 et seq.) The principles underlying coordination are similar to those that govern consolidation of actions filed in a single court. (See Pesses v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 117, 123; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1407 [complex and multidistrict litigation].)

Thus, for example, in McGhan Med. Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804 ( McGhan ), the plaintiffs petitioned for coordination of 300 to 600 breast implant cases pending in 20 different counties. Coordination was denied because the motion judge found that common questions did not predominate “in that the cases involve[d] different implants, different designs, different warnings, different defendants, different theories of defect, different modes of failure, and different injuries.” ( Id. at p. 808.) Among other factors, the trial court concluded that it was impractical to send hundreds of cases to a single county and that the benefits of coordination could be best achieved by voluntary cooperation among the judges in the counties where the cases were pending. ( Id. at p. 808, fn. 2.)

The Court of Appeal reversed in an interlocutory proceeding, ruling the trial court had misconceived the requirements of a coordinated proceeding. ( McGhan, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 811.) As the appellate court explained, Code of Civil Procedure section 404.7 gives the Judicial Council great flexibility and broad discretion over the procedure in coordinated actions. ( Id. at p. 812.) Thus, on balance, the coordinating judge would be better off confronting the coordination drawbacks (including difficulties arising from unique cases, discovery difficulties, multiple trials, the necessity of travel, and occasional delay) because the likely benefits (efficient discovery and motion practice) were so much greater. ( Id. at pp. 812-814.)

Civil Code section 954 states “[a] thing in action, arising out of the violation of a right of property, or out of an obligation, may be transferred by the owner.” The term “thing in action” means “a right to recover money or other personal property by a judicial proceeding.” (Civ. Code, § 953.) California’s Supreme Court has summarized these provisions by stating: “A cause of action is transferable, that is, assignable, by its owner if it arises out of a legal obligation or a violation of a property right. . . .” ( Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.) The enactment of Civil Code sections 953 and 954 lifted many restrictions on assignability of causes of action. ( Wikstrom v. Yolo Fliers Club (1929) 206 Cal. 461, 464; AMCO Ins. Co. v. All Solutions Ins. Agency, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 883, 891 ( AMCO ).)

Thus, California’s statutes establish the general rule that causes of action are assignable. ( AMCO, supra , 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 891-892.) This general rule of assignability applies to causes of action arising out of a wrong involving injury to personal or real property. ( Time Out, LLC v. Youabian, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009; see also, e.g., Bush v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1381 [“‘assignability of things [in action] is now the rule; nonassignability, the exception. . .’”].)

Although the assignment of claims on behalf of others to an assignee, or group of assignees, is not unique, it has not typically been used as a procedural vehicle for combining the claims of numerous plaintiffs. But, that’s not to say it can’t be done.

In fact, the United States Supreme Court has sanctioned such an approach. In Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services, Inc. (2008) 554 U.S. 269 ( Sprint ), approximately 1,400 payphone operators assigned legal title to their claims for amounts due from Sprint, AT&T, and other long-distance carriers to a group of collection firms described as “aggregators.” ( Id. at p. 272.) The legal issue presented to the United States Supreme Court was whether the assignees had standing to pursue the claims in federal court even though they had promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor. ( Id . at p. 271.) The Court concluded the assignees had standing.

In support of its conclusion, the Court recognized the long-standing right to assign lawsuits:

. . . [C]ourts have long found ways to allow assignees to bring suit; that where assignment is at issue, courts — both before and after the founding — have always permitted the party with legal title alone to bring suit; and that there is a strong tradition specifically of suits by assignees for collection. We find this history and precedent ‘well nigh conclusive’ in respect to the issue before us: Lawsuits by assignees, including assignees for collection only, are ‘cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process.’

( Sprint , supra , 554 U.S . at p. 285.)

On this basis, the Court concluded:

Petitioners have not offered any convincing reason why we should depart from the historical tradition of suits by assignees, including assignees for collection. In any event, we find that the assignees before us satisfy the Article III standing requirements articulated in more modern decisions of this Court.

( Sprint , supra , 554 U.S at pp. 285-286.)

The Court also considered the argument that the aggregators were attempting to circumvent the class-action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. ( Sprint, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 290-291.) The Court rejected this argument as a barrier to aggregation by assignment on the grounds that (1) class actions were permissive, not mandatory, and (2) “class actions constitute but one of several methods for bringing about aggregation of claims, i.e., they are but one of several methods by which multiple similarly situated parties get similar claims resolved at one time and in one federal forum. [Citations.]” ( Id. at p. 291.)

Granted, Sprint arose in the context of Article III, a “prudential standing” analysis. However, in reaching its decision that assignees had standing, the Court relied significantly on three California state decisions addressing assignment of rights under California law. (See Sprint, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 294-296.)

Under California law, assignment of claims is not a panacea. Not all claims can be assigned. In California, assignment is not allowed for tort causes of action based on “wrongs done to the person, the reputation or the feelings of an injured party,” including “causes of action for slander, assault and battery, negligent personal injuries, seduction, breach of marriage promise, and malicious prosecution.” ( AMCO, supra , 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 892 [exceptions to assignment also include “legal malpractice claims and certain types of fraud claims”].) Other assignments are statutorily prohibited. (See, e.g., Civ. Code, § 2985.1 [regulating assignment of real property sales contracts]; Gov. Code, § 8880.325 [state lottery prizes not assignable].)

Likewise, because a right of action cannot be split, a partial assignment will require the joinder of the partial assignor as an indispensable party. (See, e.g., Bank of the Orient v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 588, 595 [“[W]here . . . there has been a partial assignment all parties claiming an interest in the assignment must be joined as plaintiffs . . . ”]; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleadings, § 131(2), p. 198 [“If the assignor has made only a partial assignment, the assignor remains beneficially interested in the claim and the assignee cannot sue alone”].)

That said, California’s rules of law regarding standing and assignments do not prohibit an assignee’s aggregation of a large number of claims against a single defendant or multiple defendants into a single lawsuit. To the contrary, no limitations or conditions on this type of aggregation of assigned claims is imposed from other rules of law, such as California’s compulsory joinder statute. (See Sprint , supra , 554 U.S. at p. 292 [to address practical problems that might arise because aggregators, not payphone operators, were suing, district “court might grant a motion to join the payphone operators to the case as ‘required’ parties” under Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 19].)

There are many procedural approaches to evaluate when seeking to combine the claims of multiple plaintiffs. Class actions and joinders are more traditional methods that trial counsel rely on to bring claims together. Although a largely unexplored procedural approach, assignment appears to be an expedient way of combining the claims of numerous plaintiffs. It avoids the legal requirements imposed for class actions and joinders, and it sidesteps a trial judge’s discretion regarding whether to consolidate, relate, or coordinate actions. Indeed, under the right circumstances, an assignment of claims might provide a means of bypassing class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Perhaps an assignment of claims should be added to the mix of considerations when deciding how to bring a case involving numerous plaintiffs with similar claims against a common defendant or set of defendants.

Judith Posner

Judith Posner is an attorney at Benedon & Serlin, LLP , a boutique appellate law firm.

Gerald Serlin

Gerald Serlin is an attorney at Benedon & Serlin, LLP , a boutique appellate law firm.

Subject Matter Index

Copyright © 2024 by the author. For reprint permission, contact the publisher: Advocate Magazine

• Featured Articles
• Recent Issues
• Advertising
• Contributors Writer's Guidelines
• Search Advanced Search

• Received a document?

Assignment of Benefits for Contractors: Pros & Cons of Accepting an AOB

22 articles

Insurance , Restoration , Slow Payment

When a property owner files an insurance claim to cover a restoration or roofing project, the owner typically deals directly with the insurance company. They may not have the funds available to pay the contractor out of pocket, so they’re counting on that insurance check to cover the construction costs.

But insurance companies often drag their feet, and payments can take even longer than normal. Contractors often wish they could simply deal with the insurance company directly through an assignment of benefits. In some circumstances, an AOB can be an effective tool that helps contractors collect payment faster — but is it worth it?

In this article, we’ll explain what an assignment of benefits is, and how the process works. More importantly, we’ll look at the pros and cons for restoration and roofing contractors to help you decide if an AOB is worth it . 

What is an assignment of benefits? 

An assignment of benefits , or AOB, is an agreement to transfer insurance claim rights to a third party. It gives the assignee authority to file and negotiate a claim directly with the insurance company, without involvement from the property owner. 

An AOB also allows the insurer to pay the contractor directly instead of funneling funds through the customer. AOBs take the homeowner out of the claims equation.

Here’s an example: A property owner’s roof is damaged in a hurricane. The owner contacts a restoration company to repair the damage, and signs an AOB to transfer their insurance rights to the contractor. The contractor, now the assignee, negotiates the claim directly with the insurance company. The insurer will pay the claim by issuing a check for the repairs directly to the restoration contractor. 

Setting up an AOB

A property owner and contractor can set up an assignment of benefits in two steps: 

• The owner and the contractor sign an AOB agreement
• The contractor sends the AOB to the insurance company

Keep in mind that many states have their own laws about what the agreement can or should include .

For example, Florida’s assignment of benefits law contains relatively strict requirements when it comes to an assignment of benefits: 

• The AOB agreements need to be in writing. The agreement must contain a bolded disclosure notifying the customer that they are relinquishing certain rights under the homeowners policy. You can’t charge administrative fees or penalties if a homeowner decides to cancel the AOB. 
• The AOB must include an itemized, per-unit breakdown of the work you plan to do. The services can only involve how you plan to make repairs or restore the home’s damage or protect the property from any further harm. A copy must be provided to the insurance company. 
• A homeowner can rescind an AOB agreement within 14 days of signing, or within 30 days if no work has begun and no start date was listed for the work. If a start date is listed, the 30-day rule still applies if substantial progress has not been made on the job. 

Before signing an AOB agreement, make sure you understand the property owner’s insurance policy, and whether the project is likely to be covered.

Learn more: Navigating an insurance claim on a restoration project

Pros & cons for contractors

It’s smart to do a cost-benefit analysis on the practice of accepting AOBs. Listing pros and cons can help you make a logical assessment before deciding either way. 

Pro: Hiring a public adjuster

An insurance carrier’s claims adjuster will inspect property damage and arrive at a dollar figure calculated to cover the cost of repairs. Often, you might feel this adjuster may have overlooked some details that should factor into the estimate. 

If you encounter pushback from the insurer under these circumstances, a licensed, public adjuster may be warranted. These appraisers work for the homeowner, whose best interests you now represent as a result of the AOB. A public adjuster could help win the battle to complete the repairs properly. 

Pro: More control over payment

You may sink a considerable amount of time into preparing an estimate for a customer. You may even get green-lighted to order materials and get started. Once the ball starts rolling, you wouldn’t want a customer to back out on the deal. 

Klark Brown , Co-founder of The Alliance of Independent Restorers, concedes this might be one of the very situations in which an AOB construction agreement might help a contractor. “An AOB helps make sure the homeowner doesn’t take the insurance money and run,” says Brown.  

Pro: Build a better relationship with the homeowner

A homeowner suffers a substantial loss and it’s easy to understand why push and pull with an insurance company might be the last thing they want to undertake. They may desire to have another party act on their behalf. 

As an AOB recipient, the claims ball is now in your court. By taking some of the weight off a customer’s shoulders during a difficult period, it could help build good faith and further the relationship you strive to build with that client. 

Learn more : 8 Ways for Contractors to Build Trust With a Homeowner

Con: It confuses payment responsibilities

Even if you accept an AOB, the property owner still generally bears responsibility for making payment. If the insurance company is dragging their feet, a restoration contractor can still likely file a mechanics lien on the property .

A homeowner may think that by signing away their right to an insurance claim, they are also signing away their responsibility to pay for the restoration work. This typically isn’t true, and this expectation could set you up for a more contentious dispute down the line if there is a problem with the insurance claim. 

Con: Tighter margins

Insurance companies will want repairs made at the lowest cost possible. Just like you, carriers run a business and need to cut costs while boosting revenue. 

While some restoration contractors work directly with insurers and could get a steady stream of work from them, Brown emphasizes that you may be sacrificing your own margins. “Expect to accept work for less money than you’d charge independently,” he adds. 

The takeaway here suggests that any contractor accepting an AOB could subject themselves to the same bare-boned profit margins. 

Con: More administrative work

Among others, creating additional administrative busywork is another reason Brown recommends that you steer clear of accepting AOBs. You’re committing additional resources while agreeing to work for less money. 

“Administrative costs are a burden,” Brown states. Insurers may reduce and/or delay payments to help their own bottom lines. “Insurers will play the float with reserves and claims funds,” he added. So, AOBs can be detrimental to your business if you’re spending more while chasing payments. 

Con: Increase in average collection period

Every contractor should use some financial metrics to help gauge the health of the business . The average collection period for receivables measures the average time it takes you to get paid on your open accounts. 

Insurance companies aren’t known for paying claims quickly. If you do restoration work without accepting an AOB, you can often take action with the homeowner to get paid faster. When you’re depending on an insurance company to make your payment, rather than the owner, collection times will likely increase.

The literal and figurative bottom line is: If accepting assignment of benefits agreements increases the time it takes to get paid and costs you more in operational expense, these are both situations you want to avoid. 

Learn more: How to calculate your collection effectiveness 

AOBs and mechanics liens

A mechanics lien is hands down a contractor’s most effective tool to ensure they get paid for their work. Many types of restoration services are protected under lien laws in most states. But what happens to lien rights when a contractor accepts an assignment of benefits? 

An AOB generally won’t affect a contractor’s ability to file a mechanics lien on the property if they don’t receive payment. The homeowner is typically still responsible to pay for the improvements. This is especially true if the contract involves work that wasn’t covered by the insurance policy. 

However, make sure you know the laws in the state where your project is located. For example, Florida’s assignment of benefits law, perhaps the most restrictive in the country, appears to prohibit an AOB assignee from filing a lien. 

Florida AOB agreements are required to include language that waives the contractor’s rights to collect payment from the owner. The required statement takes it even further, stating that neither the contractor or any of their subs can file a mechanics lien on the owner’s property. 

On his website , Florida’s CFO says: “The third-party assignee and its subcontractors may not collect, or attempt to collect money from you, maintain any action of law against you, file a lien against your property or report you to a credit reporting agency.”

That sounds like a contractor assignee can’t file a lien if they aren’t paid . But, according to construction lawyer Alex Benarroche , it’s not so cut-and-dry.

“Florida’s AOB law has yet to be tested in court, and it’s possible that the no-lien provision would be invalid,” says Benarroche. “This is because Florida also prohibits no-lien clauses in a contract. It is not legal for a contractor to waive their right to file a lien via an agreement prior to performance.” 

Learn more about no-lien clauses and their enforceability state-by-state

Remember that every state treats AOBs differently, and conflicting laws can create additional risk. It’s important to consult with a construction lawyer in the project’s state before accepting an assignment of benefits. 

Best practices for contractors 

At the end of the day, there are advantages and disadvantages to accepting an assignment of benefits. While it’s possible in some circumstances that an AOB could help a contractor get paid faster, there are lots of other payment tools that are more effective and require less administrative costs. An AOB should never be the first option on the table . 

If you do decide to become an assignee to the property owner’s claim benefits, make sure you do your homework beforehand and adopt some best practices to effectively manage the assignment of benefits process. You’ll need to keep on top of the administrative details involved in drafting AOBs and schedule work in a timely manner to stay in compliance with the conditions of the agreement. 

Make sure you understand all the nuances of how insurance works when there’s a claim . You need to understand the owner’s policy and what it covers. Home insurance policy forms are basically standardized for easy comparisons in each state, so what you see with one company is what you get with all carriers. 

Since you’re now the point of contact for the insurance company, expect more phone calls and emails from both clients and the insurer . You’ll need to have a strategy to efficiently handle ramped-up communications since the frequency will increase. Keep homeowners and claims reps in the loop so you can build customer relationships and hopefully get paid faster by the insurer for your work.

Ask an expert for free

I am doing some part-time administrative work for a friend who has an owner/operator pressure washing business located in NC in its first year of business. Recently, my friend has expressed interest in expanding his operations to FL so that he can eventually live and work between both...

I am a homeowner, 4 days prior to Ida, we had solar panels installed. Half were damaged and blown off of course, so after we allowed the solar panel co to do our roof and redo our panel system. After a year, they finally replaced our roof and...

I believe a person was impersonating as a licensed general contractor. When I verified the license in GA, the license belonged to a completely different individual. When I called the provided insurance carrier of the general contractor, the insurance company said the company did not have an active...

Thomas Tracy

View Profile

About the author

Recommended for you

Do i have to sign a lien waiver to get paid.

Lien waivers are an important part of optimizing construction payment. Property owners and GCs rely on waivers to manage the...

What is Overbilling? | Construction Industry Accounting

Overbilling occurs when a contractor bills for contracted labor and materials prior to that work actually being completed. For example,...

The Ultimate Guide to Lien Waivers in Construction

What are lien waivers in construction? This article is the ultimate guide for construction lien waivers including essential information and...

What Is a Work in Progress Schedule? | Construction Accounting

The Work In Progress (WIP) schedule is an accounting schedule that's a component of a company's balance sheet. It's calculated...

What Is a Notice of Completion?

What is a Notice of Completion? As anyone reading this surely knows, the construction industry loves its documents! There's a...

The Ultimate Guide to Retainage in the Construction Industry

The practice of retainage, aka retention, has a tremendous impact on the construction industry. Learn how retainage works on different...

What Is a Construction Schedule of Values? [Free Template Download]

A Schedule of Values is an essential tool used in construction project accounting that represents a start-to-finish list of work...

Construction Contracts: Pros and Cons of a Cost-Plus Contract

What is a cost-plus contract and how is it used in the construction industry? This type of contract is also...

• Practical Law

Assignment of a claim or cause of action

Practical law uk practice note 1-522-7861  (approx. 32 pages), get full access to this document with a free trial.

Try free and see for yourself how Practical Law resources can improve productivity, efficiency and response times.

About Practical Law

This document is from Thomson Reuters Practical Law, the legal know-how that goes beyond primary law and traditional legal research to give lawyers a better starting point. We provide standard documents, checklists, legal updates, how-to guides, and more.

650+ full-time experienced lawyer editors globally create and maintain timely, reliable and accurate resources across all major practice areas.

83% of customers are highly satisfied with Practical Law and would recommend to a colleague.

81% of customers agree that Practical Law saves them time.

• Court proceedings: restructuring & insolvency
• Property: restructuring & insolvency
• Restructuring and Insolvency Transactions
• Regulation, Powers and Duties of Insolvency Practitioners

Assignment of Benefits: What It Is, and How It Can Affect your Property Insurance Claim

Table of Contents

What is an Assignment of Benefits?

In the context of insured property claims, an assignment of benefits (AOB) is an agreement between you and a contractor in which you give the contractor your right to insurance payments for a specific scope of work .  In exchange, the contractor agrees that it will not seek payment from you for that scope of work, except for the amount of any applicable deductible.  In other words, you give part of your insurance claim to your contractor, and your contractor agrees not to collect from you for part of its work.

The most important thing to know about an assignment of benefits is that it puts your contractor in control your claim , at least for their scope of work.  Losing that control can significantly affect the direction and outcome of your claim, so you should fully understand the implications of an AOB (sometimes called an assignment of claims or AOC) before signing one.

How Does an Assignment of Benefits Work in Practice? 

Let’s say you’re an insured homeowner, and Hurricane Ian significantly damaged your roof.  Let’s also assume your homeowner’s policy covers that damage.  A roofer, after inspecting your roof and reviewing your insurance policy, might conclude that your insurer is probably going to pay for a roof replacement under your insurance policy.  The only problem is that it’s early in the recovery process, and your insurer hasn’t yet stated whether it will pay for the roof replacement proposed by your contractor. So if you want your roof replaced now, you would ordinarily agree to pay your roofer for the replacement, and wait in hopes that your insurer reimburses you for the work.  This means that if your insurance company refuses to pay or drags out payment, you’re on the hook to your roofer for the cost of the replacement.

As an alternative to agreeing to pay your roofer for the full cost of the work, you could sign an assignment of benefits for the roof replacement.  In this scenario, your roofer owns the part of your insurance claim that pertains to the roof replacement.  You might have to pay your roofer for the amount of your deductible, but you probably don’t have to pay them for the rest of the cost of the work.  And if your insurance company refuses to pay or drags out payment for the roof replacement, it’s your roofer, and not you, who would be on the hook for that shortfall.

So should you sign an AOB?  Not necessarily.  Read below to understand the pros and cons of an assignment of benefits.

Are There any Downsides to Signing an Assignment of Benefits?

Yes.  

You lose control of your claim . This is the most important factor to understand when considering whether to sign an AOB.  An AOB is a formal assignment of your legal rights to payment under your insurance contract.  Unless you’re able to cancel the AOB, your contractor will have full control over your claim as it relates to their work. 

To explain why that control could matter, let’s go back to the roof replacement example.  When you signed the AOB, the scope of work you agreed on was to replace the roof.  But you’re not a roofing expert, so you don’t know whether the costs charged or the materials used by the roofer in its statement of work are industry appropriate or not.  In most cases, they probably are appropriate, and there’s no problem.  But if they’re not – if, for instance, the roofer’s prices are unreasonably high – then the insurer may not approve coverage for the replacement.  At that point, the roofer could lower its prices so the insurer approves the work, but it doesn’t have to, because it controls the claim .  Instead it could hold up work and threaten to sue your insurer unless it approves the work at the originally proposed price.  Now the entire project is insnared in litigation, leaving you in a tough spot with your insurer for your other claims and, most importantly, with an old leaky roof.

Misunderstanding the Scope of Work.   Another issue that can arise is that you don’t understand the scope of the assignment of benefits.  Contractor estimates and scopes of work are often highly technical documents that can be long on detail but short on clarity.  Contractors are experts at reading and writing them.  You are not.  That difference matters because the extent of your assignment of benefits is based on that technical, difficult-to-understand scope of work.  This can lead to situations where your understanding of what you’re authorizing the contractor to do is very different from what you’ve actually authorized in the AOB agreement.

In many cases, it’s not necessary .   Many contractors will work with you and your insurer to provide a detailed estimate of their work, and will not begin that work until your insurer has approved coverage for it.  This arrangement significantly reduces the risk of you being on the hook for uninsured repairs, without creating any of the potential problems that can occur when you give away your rights to your claim.

Do I have to sign an Assignment of Benefits?

No.  You are absolutely not required to sign an AOB if you do not want to. 

Are There any Benefits to Signing an Assignment of Benefits?

Potentially, but only if you’ve fully vetted your contractor and your claim involves complicated and technical construction issues that you don’t want to deal with. 

First, you must do your homework to fully vet your contractor!  Do not just take their word for it or be duped by slick ads.  Read reviews, understand their certificate of insurance, know where they’re located, and, if possible, ask for and talk to references.  If you’ve determined that the contractor is highly competent at the work they do, is fully insured, and has a good reputation with customers, then that reduces the risk that they’ll abuse their rights to your claim.

Second, if your claim involves complicated reconstruction issues, a reputable contractor may be well equipped to handle the claim and move it forward.  If you don’t want to deal with the hassle of handling a complicated claim like this, and you know you have a good contractor, one way to get rid of that hassle is an AOB.

Another way to get rid of the hassle is to try Claimly, the all-in-one claims handling tool that get you results but keeps you in control of your claim.  

Can my insurance policy restrict the use of AOBs?

Yes, it’s possible that your Florida insurance policy restricts the use of AOBs, but only if all of the following criteria are met:

• When you selected your coverage, your insurer offered you a different policy with the same coverage, only it did not restrict the right to sign an AOB.
• Your insurer made the restricted policy available at a lower cost than the unrestricted policy.
• If the policy completely prohibits AOBs, then it was made available at a lower cost than any policy partially prohibiting AOBs.
• The policy includes on its face the following notice in 18-point uppercase and boldfaced type:

THIS POLICY DOES NOT ALLOW THE UNRESTRICTED ASSIGNMENT OF POST-LOSS INSURANCE BENEFITS. BY SELECTING THIS POLICY, YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO FREELY ASSIGN OR TRANSFER THE POST-LOSS PROPERTY INSURANCE BENEFITS AVAILABLE UNDER THIS POLICY TO A THIRD PARTY OR TO OTHERWISE FREELY ENTER INTO AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT AS THE TERM IS DEFINED IN SECTION 627.7153 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES.

627.7153. 

Pro Tip : If you have an electronic copy of your complete insurance policy (not just the declaration page), then search for “policy does not allow the unrestricted assignment” or another phrase from the required language above to see if your policy restricts an AOB.  If your policy doesn’t contain this required language, it probably doesn’t restrict AOBs.

Do I have any rights or protections concerning Assignments of Benefits?

Yes, you do.  Florida recently enacted laws that protect consumers when dealing with an AOB.

Protections in the AOB Contract

To be enforceable, a Assignments of Benefits must meet all of the following requirements:

• Be in writing and executed by and between you and the contractor.
• Contain a provision that allows you to cancel the assignment agreement without a penalty or fee by submitting a written notice of cancellation signed by the you to the assignee:
• at least 30 days after the date work on the property is scheduled to commence if the assignee has not substantially performed, or
• at least 30 days after the execution of the agreement if the agreement does not contain a commencement date and the assignee has not begun substantial work on the property.
• Contain a provision requiring the assignee to provide a copy of the executed assignment agreement to the insurer within 3 business days after the date on which the assignment agreement is executed or the date on which work begins, whichever is earlier.
• Contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee .
• Relate only to work to be performed by the assignee for services to protect, repair, restore, or replace a dwelling or structure or to mitigate against further damage to such property.
• Contain the following notice in 18-point uppercase and boldfaced type:

YOU ARE AGREEING TO GIVE UP CERTAIN RIGHTS YOU HAVE UNDER YOUR INSURANCE POLICY TO A THIRD PARTY, WHICH MAY RESULT IN LITIGATION AGAINST YOUR INSURER. PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE SIGNING IT. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT PENALTY WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THIS AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED, AT LEAST 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE WORK ON THE PROPERTY IS SCHEDULED TO COMMENCE IF THE ASSIGNEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY PERFORMED, OR AT LEAST 30 DAYS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT IF THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN A COMMENCEMENT DATE AND THE ASSIGNEE HAS NOT BEGUN SUBSTANTIAL WORK ON THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, YOU ARE OBLIGATED FOR PAYMENT OF ANY CONTRACTED WORK PERFORMED BEFORE THE AGREEMENT IS RESCINDED. THIS AGREEMENT DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR OBLIGATION TO PERFORM THE DUTIES REQUIRED UNDER YOUR PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY.

• Contain a provision requiring the assignee to indemnify and hold harmless the assignor from all liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, attorney fees.

Contractor Duties

Under Florida law, a contractor (or anyone else) receiving rights to a claim under an AOB:

• Must provide you with accurate and up-to-date revised estimates of the scope of work to be performed as supplemental or additional repairs are required.
• Must perform the work in accordance with accepted industry standards.
• May not seek payment from you exceeding the applicable deductible under the policy unless asked the contractor to perform additional work at the your own expense.
• Must, as a condition precedent to filing suit under the policy, and, if required by the insurer, submit to examinations under oath and recorded statements conducted by the insurer or the insurer’s representative that are reasonably necessary, based on the scope of the work and the complexity of the claim, which examinations and recorded statements must be limited to matters related to the services provided, the cost of the services, and the assignment agreement.
• Must, as a condition precedent to filing suit under the policy, and, if required by the insurer, participate in appraisal or other alternative dispute resolution methods in accordance with the terms of the policy.
• If the contractor is making emergency repairs, the assignment of benefits cannot exceed the greater of $3,000 or 1% of your Coverage A limit.

Recommended Posts

The brelly guide to public adjusting in georgia, are disaster losses tax deductible, florida’s 2023 legislative session: more big changes to insurance claim laws.

Brelly’s tools and resources are your secret weapon to getting your insurance claim filed right, moving fast, and paid fully .

• Search for chemicals
• Candidate List

Candidate List of substances of very high concern for Authorisation

(published in accordance with article 59(10) of the reach regulation).

• Authentic version: Only the Candidate List published on this website is deemed authentic. Companies may have immediate legal obligations following the inclusion of a substance in the Candidate List on this website including in particular Articles 7, 31 and 33 of the REACH Regulation.
• Numerical identifiers : Each candidate list entry covers both anhydrous and hydrated forms of a substance. The CAS number shown in an entry is typically for the anhydrous form. Hydrated forms of the substance identified by other CAS numbers are still within the scope of the entry.
• Other numerical identifiers : For those entries with "-" in the EC number and CAS number columns, a non-exhaustive inventory of EC and/or CAS Registry numbers describing substances or groups of substances considered to fall within the scope of the Candidate List entry is included, where practicably possible. This information can be accessed through the "Details" button of the selected entry. 

Further information

• More information about Candidate list of Substances of Very High Concern for Authorisation
• Data on Candidate List substances in articles

See a problem or have feedback?

• ← First
• Last →

Export search results to:

Welcome to the ECHA website. This site is not fully supported in Internet Explorer 7 (and earlier versions). Please upgrade your Internet Explorer to a newer version.

Close Do not show this message again

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our websites.

Close Find out more on how we use cookies.

• SI SWIMSUIT
• SI SPORTSBOOK

Mets Surprisingly Claim Hard-Throwing Righty After Recently Letting Him Go

Patrick mcavoy | may 7, 2024.

• New York Mets

The New York Mets certainly have been extremely busy this season.

New York has had an up-and-down start to the 2024 season, to say the least. The Mets were 0-5 to begin the season but then turned things around and were red-hot for a stretch. While this is the case, New York has cooled down of late.

The Mets already have been busy while taking a look at the roster although the 2024 season still is somewhat fresh. New York even has been linked to multiple players as possible trade options later this summer.

It seems like the Mets aren't waiting around and are willing to alter the roster in real-time and made yet another move on Monday as the club surprisingly claimed pitcher Yohan Ramirez from the Baltimore Orioles after recently designating him for assignment, according to MLB Trade Rumors' Steve Adams.

"The Mets announced Monday that they’ve claimed right-hander Yohan Ramirez off waivers from the Orioles, who recently designated him for assignment," Deeds said. "In a corresponding move, the Mets designated right-hander Max Kranick for assignment. The move to claim Ramirez comes less than a month after the Mets themselves designated Ramirez for assignment and traded him to Baltimore in exchange for cash. Ramirez is out of minor league options, so he’ll head right to the big league bullpen."

Ramirez has appeared in three games so far this season with New York and allowed seven runs in 5 1/3 innings pitched. He appeared in six games with the Orioles and allowed four earned runs in six innings pitched.

He now will get another opportunity to get on track in New York.

More MLB: Mariners Floated As Possible Trade Option For Mets Star Pete Alonso By Insider

PATRICK MCAVOY