The insurance company or third-party representatives may assist with locating potential contractors and estimating restoration costs.
When inspecting the loss and drafting an estimate, the restoration contractor communicates with the property owner, insurance adjuster, and any third-party representatives to identify applicable insurance policies.
Anti-assignment clauses generally state that insured property owners may not assign or in any way transfer any rights or benefits of their insurance policies to third parties without prior written consent.
Insurance companies commonly rely upon these provisions to argue that insurance assignments to restoration professionals are ineffective.
When property is damaged by water, wind, hail, fire or a number of other occurrences, the restoration of the property is often funded by the proceeds of an insurance policy.
Generally, the insurance company is obligated to pay the property owner.
Under Ohio law, assignments of insurance executed after a covered loss are valid notwithstanding an anti-assignment clause in an insurance policy.
This means that even though the policy may have an anti-assignment clause, it is ineffective to prevent an insured from assigning the benefits of the policy to a restoration professional. Protecting your Right to Payment It is important to consult with knowledgeable legal counsel if you are considering using assignments of insurance benefits to protect against non-payment.
When insurance proceeds are assigned to a restoration contractor, the contractor has the right to demand payment directly from the insurance company.
Just as an insured property owner would have the right to file a lawsuit against an insurance company to enforce an insurance policy, if the insurance company refuses to pay a contractor who has obtained an insurance assignment, the contractor has the right to sue the insurance company to receive payment. Traditionally, after a property is damaged, the property owner requests an estimate for remediation and restoration services.