The court determined that a policy's loss payment provision did not bar a post-loss assignment. One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 2015 Fl. App. LEXIS 7643 (Fla. Ct. App. May 20, 2015). 

   After One Cell performed emergency water removal for the insured, the insured assigned his rights to policy proceeds as payment. One Cell alleged that Security First refused to reimburse the insured adequately for the services provided. One Cell filed suit, and Security First moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion based upon the policy's non-assignment provision.

   One Cell appealed. One Cell argued post-loss assignments were valid under Florida law even when the policy contained an anti-assignment provision, and the right to payment accrued on the date of the loss. 

   Relying on the loss payment provision, Security First argued that when the assignment was executed, the insured had nothing to assign because benefits were not yet due to the insured under the policy. The loss payment provision provided, in part, that the loss would be paid within a specific number of days after a written proof of loss was submitted.

   The court found that the loss payment provision did not create a contractual bar to the assignment, even though payment was not yet due. The loss payment clause merely addressed the timing of the payment. An assignable right to benefits accrued on the date of the loss, even though payment was not yet due under the loss payment clause. Dismissal of the complaint was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. 

   In Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fudn Ins. Co., 117 Haw. 357, 183 P.3d 734 (2007), the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld the anti-assignment provisions in various policies issued to the insured because none of the insureds consented to the assignment.