# Assignment of Benefits (AOB) Restrictions - All 50 States + DC

> **Purpose**: Reference table for Assignment of Benefits rules, restrictions, and enforceability across all U.S. jurisdictions.
>
> **Last Updated**: August 2026 (verified against statutes and reported decisions)
>
> **Sources**: State statutes, reported appellate decisions, insurance department guidance

---

## Overview

An **Assignment of Benefits (AOB)** is a legal document signed by a policyholder that transfers their insurance claim rights to a third party (typically a contractor, restoration company, or public adjuster). The assignee can then:
- File the claim directly with the insurer
- Negotiate settlement
- Sue the insurer for underpayment
- Receive payment directly from the insurer

**Controversy**: AOBs became problematic in states like Florida where they were allegedly used to inflate claims and increase litigation.

**Verification**: Each row below was checked against the cited statute or reported decision. Only **one state (Florida)** has a statute prohibiting property AOBs, and only for policies issued on/after 1/1/2023. Texas has **no** statutory ban; its restriction comes from courts enforcing policy non-assignment clauses. Oregon follows the majority rule and is **not** restrictive. North Dakota (N.D.C.C. § 26.1-39.2-04) and Mississippi (Miss. Code § 75-24-307, 2024) do not ban AOBs but condition post-loss assignments to residential contractors (co-payee only, notices, delivery to insurer). Rows marked **NOT VERIFIED** (11 jurisdictions: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wyoming) retain the generic majority-rule presumption from the prior edition because no controlling statute or appellate decision was located; do not cite those rows as authority.

---

## State Approaches to AOB

Groupings below are computed from the verified cells in the master table.

| Approach | Description | States |
|----------|-------------|--------|
| **Statutory prohibition** | AOBs void by statute for policies issued on/after a cutoff date | Florida, Kentucky (2024 SB 29, policies on/after 7/15/2024) |
| **Statutory protection** | Statute voids or forbids insurer restrictions on post-loss assignment | Arizona, California |
| **Statutory conditions on contractor AOBs** | AOB allowed but post-loss assignment to a residential contractor limited to co-payee status with mandated notices/delivery | Mississippi (roofing, 2024), North Dakota |
| **Clause enforced post-loss (minority rule)** | Highest or intermediate court has enforced a non-assignment clause against a post-loss assignment (some in health/PIP/liability contexts) | Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Texas |
| **Clear-language rule** | Clause bars post-loss assignment only if it clearly and unambiguously says so | Louisiana |
| **Majority rule (case law confirmed)** | Anti-assignment clause does not bar assignment of an accrued post-loss claim | Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin |
| **Not verified** | No controlling authority located; majority rule presumed | Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wyoming |

---

## AOB Rules by State

| State | AOB Status | Anti-Assignment Clause Enforced (post-loss)? | Key Rules / Authority | Source |
|-------|------------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| **Alabama** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — no controlling authority located | — |
| **Alaska** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — no controlling authority located | — |
| **Arizona** | Allowed (protected by statute) | Post-loss: No — statute bars insurer from restricting post-loss assignment | A.R.S. § 20-461(A)(7): unfair practice to fail to recognize a valid assignment or otherwise restrict assignment of a loss or claim after loss; St. Paul Fire & Marine v. Allstate, 25 Ariz. App. 309 (1975) | [azleg.gov](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/20/00461.htm); [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/ariz-app/25/) |
| **Arkansas** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Ark. Code § 4-58-102 (written contracts for payment of money assignable); § 23-79-124(a); American Med. Int'l v. Ark. Blue Cross, 299 Ark. 514 (1989). No first-party property AOB case located | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/ark/299/) (not confirmed from text) |
| **California** | Allowed | Post-loss: No — void by statute | Ins. Code § 520: pre-loss agreement not to transfer claim after loss is void; Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.4th 1175 (2015) | [leginfo.legislature.ca.gov](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS&sectionNum=520); [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/cal-4th/61/) |
| **Colorado** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: **Yes — may be enforced** | Parrish Chiropractic Ctrs. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 874 P.2d 1049 (Colo. 1994): non-assignment clause enforceable against post-loss assignment of benefits (PIP to provider) | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/p2d/874/cases/1049-01.json) |
| **Connecticut** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: Generally No | Rumbin v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 254 Conn. 259 (2000) (Restatement § 322); Peck v. Public Serv. Mut., 114 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D. Conn. 2000); Conn. Agencies Regs. § 38a-334-8. No appellate property-AOB decision located | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/conn/254/); [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/f-supp-2d/114/) (not confirmed from text) |
| **Delaware** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: **Yes — enforced (health-benefits context)** | Kent Gen. Hosp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Del., 442 A.2d 1368 (Del. 1982): non-assignment clause valid against post-loss assignment to provider; 18 Del. C. § 2711. No property-AOB case located | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/a2d/442/cases/1368-01.json) (not confirmed from text) |
| **District of Columbia** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Antal's Restaurant v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 680 A.2d 1386 (D.C. 1996): anti-assignment clause does not bar assignment of claim after loss; D.C. Code §§ 28-2303, -2304 | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/a2d/680/cases/1386-01.json) |
| **Florida** | **PROHIBITED** for residential/commercial property policies issued on/after 1/1/2023; allowed with statutory requirements for policies issued 7/1/2019–12/31/2022 | Post-loss: **Yes — statutory ban (post-1/1/2023 policies)** | F.S. § 627.7152 (as amended by SB 2-A, 2022): valid AOB only under policy issued 7/1/2019–12/31/2022; written; 18-point uppercase bold warning; itemized per-unit estimate; rescission 14 days after execution / 30 days after scheduled start / 30 days after execution if no start date; copy to insurer within 3 business days; attorney fees only under § 57.105 | [leg.state.fl.us](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699/0627/Sections/0627.7152.html) |
| **Georgia** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | O.C.G.A. § 33-24-17 (policy assignable per its terms); Santiago v. Safeway Ins. Co., 196 Ga. App. 480 (1990): post-loss assignment valid despite consent clause | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/ga-app/196/) |
| **Hawaii** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: **Yes — enforced (liability context)** | Del Monte Fresh Produce (Haw.) v. Fireman's Fund, 117 Haw. 357 (2007): assignment invalid absent insurer consent where claims not reduced to sum certain (Henkel approach); HRS § 431:10-212. No first-party property AOB case located | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/haw/117/) (not confirmed from text) |
| **Idaho** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — Idaho Code § 41-1826 (policy assignable per its terms); no decision on post-loss AOB located | [legislature.idaho.gov](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title41/T41CH18/SECT41-1826/) (not confirmed from text) |
| **Illinois** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Ginsburg v. Bull Dog Auto Fire Ins. Ass'n, 328 Ill. 571 (1928): post-loss assignment is assignment of a chose in action, valid despite anti-assignment clause | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/ill/328/) |
| **Indiana** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No — once an identifiable loss has occurred | Travelers Indem. Co. v. United States Filter Corp., 895 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. 2008): consent "is required for any assignment of policy rights, unless the assignment occurs after an identifiable loss, in which case the right to receive payment on that claim may be transferred without consent"; clause enforced where no identifiable loss had yet occurred (liability context) | [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/travelers-v-united-states-filter-889885257) |
| **Iowa** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Conrad Bros. v. John Deere Ins. Co., 640 N.W.2d 231 (Iowa 2001): general anti-assignment clause applies only pre-loss; post-loss assignment valid without consent | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/nw2d/640/cases/231-01.json) |
| **Kansas** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: Generally No (claims assignable) | Glenn v. Fleming, 247 Kan. 296 (1990) (insured's contract/bad-faith claims assignable); but St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. BCBS of Kan., 810 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Kan. 1992) enforced clause in ERISA health plan. No appellate property ruling located | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/kan/247/); [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/f-supp/810/) (not confirmed from text) |
| **Kentucky** | Prohibited by statute for policies issued/renewed on or after July 15, 2024 | Statutory bar (pre-2024 policies: post-loss assignment allowed under Wehr) | 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 27 (SB 29) creates a new section of KRS ch. 304 subtitle 20 prohibiting assignments under property or casualty policies (exception: assignments of judgments exceeding liability limits); earlier rule: Wehr Constructors v. Assurance Co. of Am., 384 S.W.3d 680 (Ky. 2012) | [KY Legislature — 2024 SB 29](https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/sb29.html) |
| **Louisiana** | Allowed | Post-loss: **Only if clause clearly and unambiguously covers post-loss assignments** | In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 63 So.3d 955 (La. 2011): no public policy bars post-loss anti-assignment, but language must be clear and unambiguous; case-by-case | [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14462951472508965199) |
| **Maine** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — 24-A M.R.S. § 2420 (policy assignable per its terms); no post-loss decision located | [legislature.maine.gov](https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/24-A/title24-Asec2420.html) (not confirmed from text) |
| **Maryland** | Allowed | Post-loss: No — where clause bars assignment of "this policy" | In re Petition of Featherfall Restoration, LLC, 487 Md. 264 (2025): clause barring assignment of "this policy" does not bar assignment of a post-loss claim (chose in action) | [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7056458647807750405) |
| **Massachusetts** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — secondary sources describe an Appeals Court ruling (insurer Massachusetts Homeland) that an anti-assignment clause does not bar post-loss claim assignment, but the decision was not located or confirmed | — |
| **Michigan** | Allowed (property/accrued benefits); assignment of future no-fault benefits void | Post-loss: No (accrued claims) | Roger Williams Ins. Co. v. Carrington, 43 Mich. 252 (1880); Jawad A. Shah, M.D., PC v. State Farm, 324 Mich. App. 182 (2018); MCL 500.3143 voids assignment of no-fault benefits payable in the future | [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=906454783539677116) |
| **Minnesota** | Allowed for accrued losses; enforced where loss not yet incurred | Post-loss: **Yes — where loss not yet incurred** | Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI v. Am. Family, 889 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 2017): anti-assignment clause enforceable; loss accrues when expense incurred (Minn. Stat. § 65B.43 subd. 7); Star Windshield Repair v. W. Nat'l, 768 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 2009) | [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13436787207450154749) (not confirmed from text) |
| **Mississippi** | Allowed; roofing-contractor AOBs conditioned by statute | Post-loss: Generally No (federal court applying Mississippi law) | Miss. Code § 75-24-307(5)–(8) (HB 1408, eff. 7/1/2024): post-loss AOB to a residential roofing contractor authorizes the contractor only as co-payee; must include itemized work, materials/labor/fees and total, no-assurance statement, 14-point notice; copy to insurer within 5 business days; may not impair mortgagee. Titan Exteriors, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 297 F. Supp. 3d 628 (N.D. Miss. 2018): anti-assignment clause reaches pre-loss assignments only; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Smith, 117 Miss. 327 (1918). No Mississippi appellate ruling located | [billstatus.ls.state.ms.us](https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2024/html/HB/1400-1499/HB1408SG.htm); [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/titan-exteriors-inc-v-lloyds-885589105) |
| **Missouri** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Magers v. Nat'l Life & Accident Ins. Co., 329 S.W.2d 752 (Mo. banc 1959); Bowden v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., 658 S.W.3d 86 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022): post-loss assignment does not violate non-assignment clause | [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11436814743268663591) |
| **Montana** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — MCA § 33-15-414 (policy assignable per its terms); no post-loss decision located | [mca.legmt.gov](https://mca.legmt.gov/mca/title_0330/chapter_0150/part_0040/section_0140/0330-0150-0040-0140.html) (not confirmed from text) |
| **Nebraska** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Millard Gutter Co. v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 295 Neb. 419 (2016): post-loss assignment of homeowner claim valid despite clause; Millard Gutter v. Shelter Mut., 312 Neb. 606 (2022) (bad-faith tort claims not assignable) | [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7158888743512677246) |
| **Nevada** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — no controlling authority located | — |
| **New Hampshire** | Allowed | Post-loss: No — standard clause ambiguous as to post-loss claims; construed against insurer | Keene Auto Body, Inc. v. State Farm, 175 N.H. 350 (2022): clause did not bar assignment of accrued post-loss breach claim; a clause expressly covering post-loss claims may be enforced | [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8528697095768006423) |
| **New Jersey** | Allowed | Post-loss: No | Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 227 N.J. 322 (2017): anti-assignment clause is not a barrier to post-loss assignment of a claim (majority rule adopted) | [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14818561923158377762) |
| **New Mexico** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — no controlling authority located; Turner v. New Brunswick Fire Ins. Co., 45 N.M. 126 (1941) treated post-fire assignments of proceeds as effective but did not construe a consent clause | — |
| **New York** | Allowed | Post-loss: No (majority rule); exception if assignment materially increases insurer risk (e.g., unfixed business-interruption losses) | Globecon Grp., LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 434 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2006) (NY law): no consent needed to assign right to proceeds after loss. Prescribed NF-AOB form (11 NYCRR 65-3.11) applies to no-fault auto provider assignments only | [law.resource.org](https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/434/434.F3d.165.html) |
| **North Carolina** | Allowed | Post-loss: No | First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 113 N.C. App. 792 (1994): non-assignment clauses apply to pre-loss assignments only (intermediate appellate authority) | [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15697166210378193549) (not confirmed from text) |
| **North Dakota** | Allowed; residential-contractor AOBs conditioned by statute | Post-loss: Generally No (no ND appellate ruling located) | N.D.C.C. § 26.1-39.2-04: post-loss AOB to a residential contractor may name the contractor as co-payee; must be provided to insurer within 5 business days; no-assurance statement and 14-point notice; may not impair mortgagee or insurer communications; cancellation right under § 26.1-39.2-02 | [ndlegis.gov](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t26-1c39-2.pdf) |
| **Ohio** | Allowed | Post-loss: No | Pilkington N. Am. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur., 112 Ohio St.3d 482, 2006-Ohio-6551: chose in action "unaffected by the anti-assignment provision when the covered loss has already occurred" | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/ohio-st-3d/112/cases/0482-01.json) |
| **Oklahoma** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Johnson v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 110, 478 P.3d 422: post-loss assignment of a property claim to a contractor "is an assignment of a chose in action and not an assignment of the insured's policy"; not prohibited by the policy or 36 O.S. § 3624 | [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/johnson-v-csaa-gen-ins-886201989) |
| **Oregon** | Allowed (majority rule); no statute restricts property AOBs | Post-loss: No | Groce v. Fidelity Gen. Ins. Co., 252 Or. 296 (1968): consent clause does not preclude assignment of cause of action for breach; ORS 31.825 authorizes assignment of causes of action against insurers | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/or/252/cases/0296-01.json) |
| **Pennsylvania** | Allowed | Post-loss: No | Egger v. Gulf Ins. Co., 588 Pa. 287 (2006): post-loss assignment valid despite clause. Caution: Fran & John's Doylestown Auto Ctr. v. Allstate, 432 Pa. Super. 449 (1994) enforced clause where AOB purported to transfer entire policy rights — assign only the post-loss claim | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/pa/588/cases/0287-01.json) |
| **Rhode Island** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — no appellate ruling; New Eng. Prop. Servs. Grp. v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., No. PC-2023-00130 (R.I. Super. July 28, 2023) litigated a homeowner AOB against a policy anti-assignment clause and R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-5-3 (outcome not confirmed); 2025 R.I. Supreme Court NEPSG appraisal decisions involved a contractor-assignee without deciding assignability | [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/new-eng-prop-servs-grp-940206864) (not confirmed from text) |
| **South Carolina** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., Op. No. 28093 (S.C. Apr. 13, 2022): "We now adopt the post-loss exception and hold insurer consent is not required for an assignment of ... coverage rights made after a loss"; "loss" = occurrence; expressly declines Hawaii/Oregon rule; follows Narruhn v. Alea London Ltd., 404 S.C. 337 (2013) (dictum). Liability-policy context; no property-AOB case or statute | [sccourts.org](https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28093.pdf) |
| **South Dakota** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — no controlling authority located | — |
| **Tennessee** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Zaharias v. Vassis, 789 S.W.2d 906 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989): insured may assign after a loss has occurred despite an anti-assignment clause requiring insurer consent; Manley v. Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 169 S.W.3d 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (same) | [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/zaharias-v-vassis-886699409) |
| **Texas** | Allowed by law — **no statutory prohibition**; enforceability turns on the policy's anti-assignment clause (case law) | Post-loss: **Yes — unambiguous clause enforced against post-loss assignments (minority rule)** | Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Gerdes, 880 S.W.2d 215 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, writ denied): "may not be assigned without our written consent" barred post-treatment PIP assignment. Tex. Ins. Code § 4102.163 (contractor may not adjust claims on property it repairs) and Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 27.02 (deductibles) do not bar AOBs | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/sw2d/880/cases/0215-01.json); [texas.public.law](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._ins._code_section_4102.163) |
| **Utah** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: Generally No (federal district court) | Davis Family Lodging, LLC v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 631 F. Supp. 3d 1122 (D. Utah 2022): insurer's prior consent not required for post-loss assignment of a property claim to a roofing contractor; assignor no longer real party in interest. No Utah appellate ruling located | [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/davis-family-lodging-llc-v-974157868) (holding not confirmed from full text) |
| **Vermont** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | In re Ambassador Ins. Co., 2008 VT 105, 184 Vt. 408, 965 A.2d 486: consent-to-assignment clause governs pre-loss transfer of the policy and "does not in any way limit the policyholder's power to make an assignment of the rights under the policy ... after a loss has occurred"; trial court's enforcement of the clause reversed. Liability/liquidation context; no property-AOB case or statute | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/vt/184/cases/0408-01.json) |
| **Virginia** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Aetna Ins. Co. v. Aston, 123 Va. 327 (1918): after loss the insured's interest "becomes a chose in action, which he has a right to assign, in spite of the usual clause against assignment, without asking permission of the company"; Va. AG Op. 10-066 (2010) applies the same rule | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/va/123/cases/0327-01.json) |
| **Washington** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Public Util. Dist. No. 1 v. International Ins. Co., 124 Wn.2d 789 (1994): adopts the "great weight of authority" that no-assignment clauses "apply to assignments before loss only, and do not prevent an assignment after loss"; assignments without insurer consent upheld. Liability-policy context; no property-AOB case or statute | [static.case.law](https://static.case.law/wash-2d/124/cases/0789-01.json) |
| **West Virginia** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Bentley v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 729 (1895): clause voiding the policy if assigned without consent "applies to assignment before loss"; Smith v. Buege, 182 W. Va. 204 (1989): assignment of the policy or proceeds after loss is valid regardless of policy conditions | [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/bentley-v-standard-fire-929790403); [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/smith-v-buege-886392748) |
| **Wisconsin** | Allowed (no AOB statute) | Post-loss: No | Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 2022 WI App 45, 404 Wis. 2d 337, aff'd per curiam, 2023 WI 42, 407 Wis. 2d 384: anti-assignment clause does not bar assignment of rights after the loss has occurred; liability-policy context | [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/pepsi-cola-metro-bottling-co-v-934488122); [case-law.vlex.com](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/pepsi-cola-metro-bottling-co-v-949358833) |
| **Wyoming** | Allowed | Post-loss: Generally No | NOT VERIFIED — no controlling authority located | — |

---

## Florida - Comprehensive AOB Reform

### Timeline of Florida AOB Law

| Date | Event | Effect |
|------|-------|--------|
| Pre-July 2019 | No AOB statute | Policies issued before 7/1/2019 fall outside § 627.7152's validity rules |
| **July 1, 2019** | HB 7065 enacted | Created F.S. § 627.7152; AOBs must comply with statutory requirements |
| **December 2022** | SB 2-A enacted | Amended § 627.7152 to void AOBs under residential and commercial property policies issued on/after 1/1/2023 |
| **January 1, 2023** | Ban effective | AOBs void for property policies issued on/after this date |

### Current Florida Rules (F.S. § 627.7152, as amended by SB 2-A)

| Policy Issue Date | AOB Valid? | Rules |
|-------------------|------------|-------|
| **7/1/2019 – 12/31/2022** | Yes (with statutory requirements) | Must comply with F.S. § 627.7152(2) |
| **On/After 1/1/2023** | **No** | Assignment agreements under residential or commercial property policies are invalid and unenforceable |

### Florida Requirements for Valid AOBs (policies issued 7/1/2019 – 12/31/2022)

Under F.S. § 627.7152(2)(a), the assignment agreement must:

1. Be **in writing** and executed by and between the assignor and assignee
2. Contain a **rescission right**: rescission without penalty within **14 days after execution**, or within **30 days after the scheduled start date** if substantial work has not begun, or within **30 days after execution** if no start date is stated and work has not begun
3. Be **delivered to the insurer within 3 business days** after execution or work start, whichever is earlier
4. Contain a written, **itemized, per-unit cost estimate** of the services to be performed
5. Relate only to work to be performed by the assignee
6. Contain the statutory **consumer warning in 18-point uppercase bold type**
7. Include the assignee's statement that it has provided an accurate estimate and will comply with the statute (per § 627.7152(2)(a)-(b))

### Florida Attorney Fees

For suits brought by an assignee, attorney fees are available only under **§ 57.105** (frivolous-litigation sanctions); § 627.428/§ 627.7152 one-way fees do not apply to assignee actions.

---

## Texas - Anti-Assignment Clauses Enforced (No Statutory Ban)

### Texas Rule
Texas has **no statute prohibiting post-loss AOBs**. The restriction is contractual: Texas courts enforce an unambiguous policy non-assignment clause even against a post-loss assignment. *Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Gerdes*, 880 S.W.2d 215 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, writ denied), held that a clause stating rights and duties "may not be assigned without our written consent" barred a post-treatment PIP assignment to a chiropractor.

### Key Points
- An AOB fails **only if the policy contains** a non-assignment clause; most standard property forms do
- Tex. Ins. Code § 4102.163 bars a contractor from acting as a public adjuster or adjusting claims on property it repairs (even under a power of attorney); it is **not** an AOB ban
- Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 27.02 governs deductible payment; it does **not** address assignment
- The "assign the legal claim, not the benefits" workaround is consistent with *Gerdes* only where no clause applies; it has not been separately verified

---

## Louisiana - Clear-Language Rule

### Louisiana Rule
*In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.*, 63 So.3d 955 (La. 2011): no public policy bars enforcing an anti-assignment clause post-loss, but the clause must **clearly and unambiguously** apply to post-loss assignments; enforceability is decided case-by-case.

### Practical Effect
A standard clause that does not clearly reach post-loss assignments will not bar an AOB; a clause that expressly does may be enforced.

---

## Oregon - Majority Rule

Oregon is **not** a restrictive state. *Groce v. Fidelity Gen. Ins. Co.*, 252 Or. 296 (1968), held a consent-to-assignment clause does not preclude assignment of a cause of action for breach, and ORS 31.825 expressly authorizes assignment of causes of action against insurers. No Oregon statute restricts property AOBs.

---

## Impact on Contractors and Restoration Companies

| State Type | Contractor Can... | Contractor Cannot... |
|------------|-------------------|---------------------|
| **FL (policies issued on/after 1/1/2023)** | Receive direct payment if insured authorizes; perform repairs | Take a valid assignment; negotiate the claim as assignee; sue the insurer as assignee |
| **FL (policies issued 7/1/2019–12/31/2022)** | Take an AOB that meets § 627.7152(2) | Enforce a non-compliant AOB |
| **Clause-enforced states (CO, DE, HI, MN, TX)** | Take an assignment only where the policy has no enforceable clause or the loss has accrued (MN) | Rely on an AOB where the policy has an unambiguous non-assignment clause |
| **Louisiana** | Take assignment unless the clause clearly reaches post-loss assignments | — |
| **Majority-rule and statutory-protection states** | Take assignment of the accrued post-loss claim; negotiate; sue insurer | Assign pre-loss policy rights without consent |

---

## Key Considerations for Claims Professionals

### Working in Florida
1. **Check policy issue date** - Issued on/after 1/1/2023? AOB is void
2. **Policies issued 7/1/2019–12/31/2022**: Verify the AOB meets every § 627.7152(2) requirement (writing, 18-point warning, itemized estimate, rescission language, 3-business-day delivery)
3. **Attorney's fees**: Assignee suits carry fees only under § 57.105

### Working in Texas
1. **Check policy language** - Does an unambiguous non-assignment clause exist? If so, expect it to be enforced (*Gerdes*)
2. **No statutory ban** - Do not describe Texas AOBs as "prohibited by statute"
3. **Watch for contractor adjusting** - Tex. Ins. Code § 4102.163 bars contractors from adjusting claims on property they repair

### Working in Louisiana
1. **Read the anti-assignment clause** - Does it clearly and unambiguously apply post-loss?
2. **Standard clauses** usually do not bar post-loss assignment (*Katrina Canal Breaches*)

### Working in Minority-Rule States (CO, DE, HI, MN)
1. The leading decisions arose in PIP, health-benefit, or liability contexts; no first-party property AOB decision was located
2. Assume an unambiguous clause may be enforced until a property-specific ruling says otherwise

---

## AOB Red Flags

| Red Flag | Risk |
|----------|------|
| AOB under FL property policy issued on/after 1/1/2023 | Void and unenforceable |
| AOB in clause-enforced state (TX, CO, DE, HI, MN) with unambiguous non-assignment clause | Likely unenforceable |
| Missing § 627.7152(2) requirements (FL, 2019–2022 policies) | Invalid and unenforceable |
| Blank or incomplete terms | Potentially unenforceable |
| Signed under duress | May be voidable |
| No itemized per-unit estimate (FL) | Does not comply with statute |
| AOB purporting to transfer entire policy rights (PA, *Fran & John's*) | Clause may be enforced |
| Waiver of FL rescission rights | Void provision |

---

## Key Takeaways

1. **Florida**: AOBs void for residential/commercial property policies issued on/after 1/1/2023 (§ 627.7152 as amended by SB 2-A); valid only for 7/1/2019–12/31/2022 policies that meet the statute
2. **Texas**: No statutory ban; courts enforce unambiguous non-assignment clauses post-loss (*Gerdes*)
3. **Minority-rule states**: CO (*Parrish*), DE (*Kent General*), HI (*Del Monte*), MN (*Stand Up MRI*) have enforced clauses against post-loss assignments
4. **Statutory protection**: AZ (A.R.S. § 20-461(A)(7)) and CA (Ins. Code § 520) bar insurer restrictions on post-loss assignment
5. **Louisiana**: Clause must clearly and unambiguously reach post-loss assignments (*Katrina Canal Breaches*)
6. **Majority rule confirmed** in 29 jurisdictions by reported decisions (Utah on a federal district decision only; Indiana requires an identifiable loss); Oregon (*Groce*) is among them, not a restrictive state
7. **Contractor-AOB statutes**: ND (N.D.C.C. § 26.1-39.2-04) and MS (Miss. Code § 75-24-307, roofing, 2024) limit post-loss assignments to residential contractors to co-payee status with mandatory notices
8. **11 jurisdictions remain NOT VERIFIED** - majority rule presumed, no controlling authority located

---

*This table is for reference purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. State laws change; verify current requirements before relying on this information.*