### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAMAGE SERVICES, INC. a/a/o GNH REAL ESTATE
, Appellant,

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 604

[ October 13, 2021 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Florence Taylor Barner and Jennifer Hilal , Judge s ; L.T.

Case No s

. COCE19

- 007411 and CACE20

- 11788

.

William J. Roe and Nirav A. Desai of the Law Office of William J. Roe, P.A., Aventura, for appel lant.

Patricia M. Rego Chapman of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm a final summary judgment in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ( “ Citizens ” ) and against Damage Services, Inc. (“DSI”), an assignee of benefits from an insured of Citizens.

DSI sued Citizens for breach of contract for failing to pay DSI for its

water extraction services due to a flooding event at Citizens’ insured’s
property. The insured ’s policy provided in Coverage G4 that it would not pay more than $3,000 for emergency measures to protect the property, unless a request to exceed the amount was made and approval was given by Citizens. DSI failed to make a request to exceed that limit in a ccordance with the policy terms

.

In Certified Priority Restoration v. Citizens Prop erty Ins urance Corp

., --- So. 3d

---- , 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1546

, 2021 WL 2673368 (Fla. 4th DCA June 30, 2021), we addressed the same policy provision for this insurer

and he ld that “the clear wording of the policy established a reimbursement cap on expenses for emergency measures which could not be exceeded2 without a request to, and prior approval from, the insurer.” Because DSI did not make a request to exceed the policy li mit prior to exceeding the limit for the work performed, we affirm.

DSI alternatively argues that it could recover under Coverage A of the policy, which insures against direct loss to the property, because its

invoice was for water extraction and remediat ion. It argues that remediation can be for improvement to the property and thus not within the emergency measure policy provisions.

However, we conclude that the court did not err in rejecting DSI’s claim.

DSI’s complaint described its work as “water ex traction” and not as any type of repair

. N o affidavit was filed by DSI to show that it had performed work other than water extraction. Most importantly, in the assignment of

benefits contract

, the insured assigned to DSI only its right to payment “in regard s to water extraction and dry out services, mold remediation, and/or smoke damage.” To the extent that DSI performed other services, it was not assigned the right to collect payments from Ci tizens for that work, including any work done under Coverage A. Rep ayment for the damage to the property under Coverage A , if any, would be made to the insured, not

DSI.

For these reasons, we affirm the final summary judgment on these grounds. We affirm as to all other issues raised.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, G ERBER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.