EMERGENCY SERVICES 24, INC.a/a/o Jay Meiselman, Appellant, v. UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., Appellee.
In Case Number 4D14–576, appellant, Emergency Services 24 (“ES24”), as an alleged assignee of the insured under a homeowner's policy, appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of United Property and Casualty Insurance Company in ES24's lawsuit for breach of contract. Because the trial court erred in finding that the anti-assignment clause and the loss payment provision precluded the assignment, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., No. 4D14–424 (Fla. 4th DCA May 20, 2015).
We emphasize, however, that we decline to reach any of the insurer's other challenges to the assignment, including whether the assignment violates the public adjuster statute or the statute governing insurable interests,1 or whether the assignment is a partial assignment that cannot be enforced against the insurer without its consent. The trial court should address these issues in the first instance. See Stark v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So.3d 285, 289 n. 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (declining to apply the tipsy coachman doctrine and explaining that an appellate court should not ordinarily decide issues not ruled on by the trial court in the first instance).
In Case Number 4D14–3320, the insurer appeals a final order denying its motion for attorney's fees on the ground that its proposal for settlement was invalid. Because we are reversing the summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the question of whether the insurer is entitled to attorney's fees is premature. We therefore reverse and vacate the order denying attorney's fees without expressing any opinion as to the validity of the proposal for settlement.
Reversed and Remanded.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.