R.A.D. Services LLC v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 21-3264 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Several homeowners hired contractors to repair damage to their homes. The homeowners assigned to the contractors their rights under their insurance policies with State Farm & Casualty Co. State Farm refused to pay. The contractors sued. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing the assignments were invalid under Nebraska law. The district court granted the motion.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the parties disagree on whether the terms are sufficient to create a valid assignment of rights. The court held that without a description of the services to be provided and a definite price, these terms are left “to be determined in the future,” and thus, there is no mutuality of obligation. Although the written language is insufficient to create an enforceable assignment, this conclusion, by itself, does not resolve this case. The contractors argued that their oral arrangements cure any deficiencies that may exist in the written agreements. The court concluded that it cannot conclude that the assignments here are invalid as a matter of law simply because the written “vital terms” were not as definite as they could have been.
Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. Contractors were assigned claims by State Farm's insureds after the insurer failed to make repair payments; under Nebraska law, an assignee does not have standing to assert a first-party bad faith claim against an insurer; the form used by those parties who hired plaintiff Millard did not assign the company the right to pursue a post-loss insurance claim; untimely filing of exhibits violated the district court's local rules, and it did not abuse its discretion in striking them; under Nebraska law, the written terms of the assignments from the homeowners to the contractors were insufficient to create a valid assignment of rights; the contractors' claim that oral agreements with the homeowners provided the additional information necessary to create a valid agreement is rejected as the contractors failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact whether their assignments with the homeowners were sufficiently definite and certain as to their terms and requirements to be enforceable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.