• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Johnson Strategies

Planning, Communications, Advocacy

  • Home
  • The JS Story
  • About JS
    • Mission
    • About Scott
    • Writing
  • Videos
  • Library
    • AOB prior to reforms effective July 1, 2019
    • AOB on and after reforms effective July 1, 2019
    • Citizens
    • Legislative Glossary
    • Government Studies and Reports
    • Miscellaneous Documents
    • Presentations and Powerpoints
  • Links
    • Government
    • Other Helpful Sites
  • Contact
You are here: Home / Advocacy / NON-DECISION ON AOB–Not as Bad as it Sounds!

NON-DECISION ON AOB–Not as Bad as it Sounds!

August 17, 2019 - Opinions by Scott Johnson Leave a Comment

Despite its previous decision to review the case, on Monday July 29th  Florida’s Supreme Court  reversed itself, announcing it would NOT answer the question of whether insurers could use policy language that required approval of AOB’s by “All Named Insureds.”  

“All Named Insureds” includes, “additional insureds and mortgagees.”  Under the correct assumption that mortgagee’s won’t approve AOB’s, most believe that policy language requiring their permission would nail the AOB coffin shut–even without the recently enacted reforms which, in their own way, pretty much did the same thing. (See Note #1 below)

The court case (Restoration 1 vs. Ark Royal) was the “belt & suspenders”–a fallback in case the legislative reforms didn’t pass or were rendered ineffective.

Fatefully, the courts statement  blames its’ change of heart on the legislative reforms: “Because we conclude that the new legislation addresses on a going-forward basis the issue before us…accordingly we dismiss this review proceeding.” (See Note #2 below)

Noteworthy is that all three of Governor DeSantis’s new appointee’s voted to hear the case and the existing, predominantly liberal majority, did not.  So, it’s still possible, albeit remote, that the court could someday rule on portions of the reforms without leaving the industry the “All Named Insureds” language to “fallback” on.

Still, it isn’t as bad as it sounds.  Some say that if the court had ruled on the issue it could’ve ruled against the use of the “All Named Insureds” language. I’ve talked to some who prefer the courts’ non-decision because it leaves room for the “All Named Insureds” language to be used in filing AOB restrictive policies permitted by the reforms.

Sounds complicated, but… it highlights one question stemming from line 303 of the reform bill,  HB-7065: When will insurers begin offering new policies that restrict the policyholders ability to sign an AOB?

Remember, the reform bill specified a handful of requirements for offering a policy that restricts use of AOB’s, as follows: 1) the insurer must continue to make available the old non-restrictive form; 2)  the new AOB restrictive policy must be available at “a lower cost” than the old non-restrictive policy, and; 3) an 18-point warning  and a signed rejection is required. Selling or offering the new policy is optional and the old policy only needs to be made available, not necessarily offered.  (See Note #3 below)

One key element here is that about six carriers, including Ark Royal, already use the “All Named Insureds” language. This, due to the OIR’s previous decision to allow “use and file” form changes to eliminate a temporary filing backlog.  Going forward those carriers rates could be a benchmark for new policy form filings that restrict AOBs.

Still, even with a rate benchmark, industry pundits believed most carriers were not likely to offer an AOB restrictive policy because they didn’t have specific language they thought the OIR would approve.  (See Note #4 below)

And there it is–the Supreme court’s non-decision improves odds that the OIR would accept the “All Named Insureds” language currently used by Ark Royal (and others) and not disapproved by the Supreme Court.

In a nutshell: insurers could use the Ark Royal “All Named Insureds” language, which the Supreme’s did not specifically approve because it has been approved, though not specifically, in the reforms of HB-7065.

That, and the fact that Ark Royal and a half dozen other carriers now have the necessary experience, both procedural and actuarial, to support using the “All Named Insureds” language, is why I say the Supreme Court’s non-decision …

…is not as bad as it sounds.

##end##

NOTE #1: I have not talked to anyone that does not believe AOB is dead if mortgagee’s must approve before any benefits can be validly assigned to a 3rd party. In fact, the prediction that such a provision would effectively end AOB was a prime argument for those 3rd parties who opposed the idea during legislative debates.  Numerous vendors have confirmed this to me in person or in emails as well.

NOTE #2: The origin of the Supreme Courts’ decision not to review AOB began when a state appeals court upheld insurance policy language barring policyholders from signing assignment of benefits agreements without the approval of co-insureds, including financial institutions holding mortgages on the property. The ruling, written by Judge Alan Forst for a unanimous three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal in 2018, contradicted a finding by the 5th District reached in December 2017. Ark Royal was one of a few carriers with a policy form that already had the “All Named Insureds” restrictive AOB language, having implemented such during the OIR’s temporary certification process.  See the following for more:

Ark Royal Case, Supreme Court Rules not to hear – Court Statement for reversing decision to review case; Restoration 1 v. Ark Royal

Ark Royal Case: Restoration 1 v. Ark Royal – Supreme Court Case regarding the “All Named Insureds” Issue with AOB.

Ark Royal Case: Supreme Court Halts Review of Controversial AOB Case – By P&C 360 regarding Restoration 1 v. Ark Royal in the “All Named Insureds” dispute.

Ark Royal Case: Supreme Court Pulls out of Insurance Dispute – From News Service of Florida by Jim Saunders, regards Restoration 1 v. Ark Royal “All Named Insureds” dispute

NOTE #3: Specifically, HB-7065 states “..an insurer may make available a policy that restricts in whole or in part an insured’s right to execute an assignment agreement…if… the insurer makes available to the insured or potential insured at the same time the same coverage under a policy that does not restrict the right to execute an assignment agreement…”.  For specific wording on all requirements to offer an AOB restrictive policy read, beginning on line 303, here.

NOTE #4: The OIR has provided an Informational Memorandum (OIR-02-19) to guide carriers in responding to various aspects of the new law.  It’s helpful on issues like approval of signed rejections and so forth.  But, it didn’t address what specific language AOB restrictive policies should use.  Other questions are: where do carriers who haven’t sold an “All Named Insureds” policy obtain actuarial data necessary to develop a lower price which, according to the OIR memo, must be approved?  And, how do they project savings (if any) from the many other reform unrelated to offering an AOB restrictive policy?

IMPORTANT:  If you enjoyed this post, you’re invited to subscribe for automatic notifications by going to: www.johnsonstrategiesllc.com.  Enter your email address where indicated.  If you’re already on the website at Johnson Strategies, LLC:  go to the home page and enter your email address on the right-hand side.  Remember, you’ll receive an email confirming your acceptance, so…check and clear your spam filter for notifications from Johnson Strategies, LLC.  ENJOY!

 

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterPost on X
FollowFollow us
PinterestSave

Filed Under: Advocacy

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Primary Sidebar

Unless otherwise attributed, articles on this site are the opinions of Scott Johnson.

To subscribe to Scott’s blog…

JS Contributors

Don Brown
Particularly on insurance issues, Don Brown brings expert legislative acumen to the JS team. First elected in 2000 he emerged as an architect on numerous insurance related reforms, predominantly Property Insurance. He’s been an independent insurance agent for over 25 years and is currently a sought-after speaker, consultant and author. Learn more
David Thompson, AAI, CPCU, CRIS
David Thompson has a well-deserved reputation across the country as a preeminent expert in the Property & Casualty field. Learn more
Bill Wilson, CPCU, ARM, AIM, AAM
Bill is one of the most respected speakers and writers on P & C issues in the U.S. He is recognized by his peers as someone who can explain complicated technical subjects in an easily understood and interesting fashion. His list of accomplishments and awards is legendary. For good reason his books, articles and consulting services are in continuous demand. Learn more
Barry Zalma, ESQ. CFE
Johnson Strategies has relied upon Mr. Zalma on numerous occasions for his research and insight into matters of insurance fraud, bad faith, relevant case law and expert analysis. Learn more

Order Scott’s Books

Collapse of an Evil Empire

Fraud and greed pushed home insurers to the brink. Something bold had to be done. This is the story of the disbarment of Florida’s most prolific litigator leading to the most comprehensive tort reforms in Florida, and perhaps American, history.

What's Past is Prologue

Lessons from the Worst Insurance Crisis in Florida’s History... ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS

Fact & Fallacy

Essays & Opinions on Florida's Most Controversial Insurance Topics.

Platforms of Success

What the New Generation of Elite Sellers are Doing and How it Can Work for You!

From Cartels to Competition

The Evolution of Insurance and the History of Florida’s Independent Agent

Recent blog posts

  • AGENTS, ADJUSTERS, INSURERS BEWARE—THE RED FLAGS OF FRAUD!
  • The Delicate Balance: Addressing MGA Concerns Without Creating Market Uncertainty
  • Are Florida’s MGA’s Under Attack?!
  • A Smarter Approach to Hurricane-Resilient Homes and Insurance Stability…
  • How Do Other Jurisdictions Manage Hurricane Risk Exposure?

Blog Archive

  • April 2025 (1)
  • March 2025 (2)
  • February 2025 (2)
  • January 2025 (2)
  • October 2024 (3)
  • September 2024 (2)
  • August 2024 (2)
  • May 2024 (1)
  • January 2024 (1)
  • October 2023 (4)
  • September 2023 (2)
  • April 2023 (1)
  • March 2023 (2)
  • February 2023 (3)
  • January 2023 (1)
  • December 2022 (2)
  • November 2022 (1)
  • August 2022 (2)
  • July 2022 (1)
  • June 2022 (1)
  • May 2022 (2)
  • March 2022 (4)
  • February 2022 (3)
  • January 2022 (3)
  • November 2021 (2)
  • October 2021 (3)
  • September 2021 (1)
  • August 2021 (3)
  • July 2021 (4)
  • April 2021 (5)
  • March 2021 (3)
  • February 2021 (6)
  • January 2021 (6)
  • December 2020 (2)
  • October 2020 (3)
  • September 2020 (2)
  • August 2020 (2)
  • July 2020 (1)
  • June 2020 (2)
  • April 2020 (1)
  • March 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (1)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • August 2019 (2)
  • June 2019 (1)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • November 2018 (1)
  • September 2018 (1)
  • July 2018 (1)
  • June 2018 (2)
  • October 2017 (2)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • August 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (2)
  • March 2017 (2)
  • February 2017 (1)
  • December 2016 (1)
  • October 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (2)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • January 2016 (2)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • October 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • August 2015 (2)
  • July 2015 (2)
  • June 2015 (2)
  • May 2015 (1)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (3)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (2)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • October 2014 (1)
  • September 2014 (2)
  • August 2014 (2)
  • July 2014 (2)
  • June 2014 (2)
  • May 2014 (3)
  • April 2014 (2)
  • March 2014 (3)
  • February 2014 (3)
  • January 2014 (2)
  • December 2013 (2)
  • November 2013 (2)
  • October 2013 (2)
  • September 2013 (2)
  • August 2013 (2)
  • July 2013 (3)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (3)
  • April 2013 (2)
  • March 2013 (3)
  • February 2013 (5)
  • January 2013 (2)
  • December 2012 (4)
  • November 2012 (3)
  • October 2012 (4)
  • August 2012 (5)
  • July 2012 (5)
  • June 2012 (4)
  • May 2012 (3)
  • April 2012 (7)
  • March 2012 (3)
  • February 2012 (3)
  • January 2012 (5)
  • December 2011 (6)
  • November 2011 (7)
  • October 2011 (6)
  • September 2011 (2)
  • August 2011 (7)
  • July 2011 (7)
  • June 2011 (4)
  • May 2011 (4)

Tag Cloud

7-7-7 Plan Citizens Insurance oir Rick Scott sb-480 senator fasano senator richter
Unless otherwise attributed, articles on this site are the opinions of Scott Johnson.

Mission: Satisfaction Guaranteed

Johnson Strategies (JS) works to establish and achieve goals promoting products or idea's to customers, state policymakers and the consuming public. This is done on behalf of both corporate and individual clients, non-profit trade associations and membership societies. JS specializes in planning, communication and advocacy for a wide range of interests focused in the property and casualty insurance field. Our simple mission is to guarantee satisfaction based on a comprehensive needs analysis and mutually defined goals.

Categories

Popular Tags

7-7-7 Plan Citizens Insurance oir Rick Scott sb-480 senator fasano senator richter

Post Calendar

May 2025
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Apr    

Recent Posts

  • AGENTS, ADJUSTERS, INSURERS BEWARE—THE RED FLAGS OF FRAUD!
  • The Delicate Balance: Addressing MGA Concerns Without Creating Market Uncertainty
  • Are Florida’s MGA’s Under Attack?!
  • A Smarter Approach to Hurricane-Resilient Homes and Insurance Stability…
  • How Do Other Jurisdictions Manage Hurricane Risk Exposure?
  • PART II of “What Agents Need to Know About Public Adjusters…
  • Latest Decision on AOB!

[footer_backtotop]

Copyright 2012, Johnson Strategies LLC. Website design/development by Cali Design LLC