Assignment of claims
An untraditional approach to combining the claims of plaintiffs; how it differs from class actions, joinder, consolidation, relation and coordination
A large class of plaintiffs engages you to bring a common action against a defendant or set of defendants. As counsel, you resolve to combine the plaintiffs’ various claims into a single lawsuit. In this article, we touch on some of the traditional approaches, such as a class action, joinder, consolidation, relation, and coordination. To that list, we add as an approach the assignment of claims, a procedural vehicle validated by the United States Supreme Court, but not typically employed to combine the claims of numerous plaintiffs.
In Hansberry v. Lee (1940) 311 U.S. 32, the United States Supreme Court explained that “[t]he class suit was an invention of equity to enable it to proceed to a decree in suits where the number of those interested in the subject of the litigation is so great that their joinder as parties in conformity to the usual rules of procedure is impracticable. Courts are not infrequently called upon to proceed with causes in which the number of those interested in the litigation is so great as to make difficult or impossible the joinder of all because some are not within the jurisdiction or because their whereabouts is unknown or where if all were made parties to the suit its continued abatement by the death of some would prevent or unduly delay a decree. In such cases where the interests of those not joined are of the same class as the interests of those who are, and where it is considered that the latter fairly represent the former in the prosecution of the litigation of the issues in which all have a common interest, the court will proceed to a decree.” ( Id. at pp. 41-42.)
In California’s state courts, class actions are authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 382, which applies when the issue is “‘one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court.’” ( Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 955, 968; see also, e.g., Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.760-3.771.) “The party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.” ( Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021.) “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.’” ( Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435; see Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq. [Consumers Legal Remedies Act]; cf. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 23(a) [prerequisites for federal class action].)
Parties, acting as co-plaintiffs, can also obtain economies of scale by joining their claims in a single lawsuit. Under California’s permissive joinder statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 378 (section 378), individuals may join in one action as plaintiffs if the following conditions are met:
(a)(1) They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action; or
(2) They have a claim, right, or interest adverse to the defendant in the property or controversy which is the subject of the action.
(b) It is not necessary that each plaintiff be interested as to every cause of action or as to all relief prayed for. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective right to relief.
This strategy of joining multiple persons in one action has been referred to as a “mass action” in some decisions involving numerous plaintiffs. (See Aghaji v. Bank of America, N.A. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1113; Petersen v. Bank of America Corp . (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 238, 240 ( Petersen ); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B) [federal definition of “mass action”].)
In Petersen , for example, 965 plaintiffs who borrowed money from Countrywide Financial Corporation in the mid-2000’s banded together and filed a single lawsuit against Countrywide and related entities. ( Petersen , supra , 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 242-243.) The plaintiffs alleged Countrywide had developed a strategy to increase its profits by misrepresenting the loan terms and using captive real estate appraisers to provide dishonest appraisals that inflated home prices and induced borrowers to take loans Countrywide knew they could not afford. ( Id. at p. 241.) The plaintiffs alleged Countrywide had no intent to keep these loans, but to bundle and sell them on the secondary market to unsuspecting investors who would bear the risk the borrowers could not repay. ( Id. at pp. 241, 245.) Countrywide and the related defendants demurred on the ground of misjoinder of the plaintiffs in violation of section 378. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed all plaintiffs except the one whose name appeared first in the caption. ( Id . at p. 247.) The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings. ( Id . at p. 256.)
Petersen resolved two questions. First, it concluded the operative pleading alleged wrongs arising out of “‘the same . . . series of transactions’” that would entail litigation of at least one common question of law or fact. ( Petersen, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 241.) The appellate court noted the individual damages among the 965 plaintiffs would vary widely, but the question of liability provided a basis for joining the claims in a single action. ( Id. at p. 253.) Second, the appellate court concluded “California’s procedures governing permissive joinder are up to the task of managing mass actions like this one.” ( Id. at p. 242.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a) provides that, “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (See also Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 42.)
There are two types of consolidation. The first is a consolidation for purposes of trial only, when the actions remain otherwise separate. The second is a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, when the actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. ( Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 ( Hamilton ).)
Consolidation is designed to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to the various actions. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleadings, § 341, p. 470.) Unless all parties in the involved cases stipulate, consolidation requires a written, noticed motion (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a); Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 495, 514), and is subject to the trial court’s discretion. ( Hamilton, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1147.)
In a procedure somewhat similar to consolidation, under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a), a pending civil action may be related to other civil actions (whether still pending or already resolved by dismissal or judgment) if the matters “[a]rise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact” or “[a]re likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” ( Id. , rule 3.300(a)(2), (4).) An order to relate cases may be made only after service of a notice on all parties that identifies the potentially related cases. No written motion is required. ( Id ., rule 3.300(h)(1).) The Judicial Council provides a standard form for this purpose. When a trial court agrees the cases listed in the notice are related, all are typically assigned to the trial judge in whose department the first case was filed. ( Id ., rule 3.300(h)(1)(A).)
Related cases are not consolidated cases. Related cases maintain their separate identities but are heard by the same trial judge. Consolidated cases, in contrast, essentially merge and proceed under a single case number.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 404, the Chairperson of the Judicial Council is authorized to coordinate actions filed in different courts that share common questions of fact or law. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.500 et seq.) The principles underlying coordination are similar to those that govern consolidation of actions filed in a single court. (See Pesses v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 117, 123; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1407 [complex and multidistrict litigation].)
Thus, for example, in McGhan Med. Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804 ( McGhan ), the plaintiffs petitioned for coordination of 300 to 600 breast implant cases pending in 20 different counties. Coordination was denied because the motion judge found that common questions did not predominate “in that the cases involve[d] different implants, different designs, different warnings, different defendants, different theories of defect, different modes of failure, and different injuries.” ( Id. at p. 808.) Among other factors, the trial court concluded that it was impractical to send hundreds of cases to a single county and that the benefits of coordination could be best achieved by voluntary cooperation among the judges in the counties where the cases were pending. ( Id. at p. 808, fn. 2.)
The Court of Appeal reversed in an interlocutory proceeding, ruling the trial court had misconceived the requirements of a coordinated proceeding. ( McGhan, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 811.) As the appellate court explained, Code of Civil Procedure section 404.7 gives the Judicial Council great flexibility and broad discretion over the procedure in coordinated actions. ( Id. at p. 812.) Thus, on balance, the coordinating judge would be better off confronting the coordination drawbacks (including difficulties arising from unique cases, discovery difficulties, multiple trials, the necessity of travel, and occasional delay) because the likely benefits (efficient discovery and motion practice) were so much greater. ( Id. at pp. 812-814.)
Civil Code section 954 states “[a] thing in action, arising out of the violation of a right of property, or out of an obligation, may be transferred by the owner.” The term “thing in action” means “a right to recover money or other personal property by a judicial proceeding.” (Civ. Code, § 953.) California’s Supreme Court has summarized these provisions by stating: “A cause of action is transferable, that is, assignable, by its owner if it arises out of a legal obligation or a violation of a property right. . . .” ( Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.) The enactment of Civil Code sections 953 and 954 lifted many restrictions on assignability of causes of action. ( Wikstrom v. Yolo Fliers Club (1929) 206 Cal. 461, 464; AMCO Ins. Co. v. All Solutions Ins. Agency, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 883, 891 ( AMCO ).)
Thus, California’s statutes establish the general rule that causes of action are assignable. ( AMCO, supra , 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 891-892.) This general rule of assignability applies to causes of action arising out of a wrong involving injury to personal or real property. ( Time Out, LLC v. Youabian, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009; see also, e.g., Bush v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1381 [“‘assignability of things [in action] is now the rule; nonassignability, the exception. . .’”].)
Although the assignment of claims on behalf of others to an assignee, or group of assignees, is not unique, it has not typically been used as a procedural vehicle for combining the claims of numerous plaintiffs. But, that’s not to say it can’t be done.
In fact, the United States Supreme Court has sanctioned such an approach. In Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services, Inc. (2008) 554 U.S. 269 ( Sprint ), approximately 1,400 payphone operators assigned legal title to their claims for amounts due from Sprint, AT&T, and other long-distance carriers to a group of collection firms described as “aggregators.” ( Id. at p. 272.) The legal issue presented to the United States Supreme Court was whether the assignees had standing to pursue the claims in federal court even though they had promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor. ( Id . at p. 271.) The Court concluded the assignees had standing.
In support of its conclusion, the Court recognized the long-standing right to assign lawsuits:
. . . [C]ourts have long found ways to allow assignees to bring suit; that where assignment is at issue, courts — both before and after the founding — have always permitted the party with legal title alone to bring suit; and that there is a strong tradition specifically of suits by assignees for collection. We find this history and precedent ‘well nigh conclusive’ in respect to the issue before us: Lawsuits by assignees, including assignees for collection only, are ‘cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process.’
( Sprint , supra , 554 U.S . at p. 285.)
On this basis, the Court concluded:
Petitioners have not offered any convincing reason why we should depart from the historical tradition of suits by assignees, including assignees for collection. In any event, we find that the assignees before us satisfy the Article III standing requirements articulated in more modern decisions of this Court.
( Sprint , supra , 554 U.S at pp. 285-286.)
The Court also considered the argument that the aggregators were attempting to circumvent the class-action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. ( Sprint, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 290-291.) The Court rejected this argument as a barrier to aggregation by assignment on the grounds that (1) class actions were permissive, not mandatory, and (2) “class actions constitute but one of several methods for bringing about aggregation of claims, i.e., they are but one of several methods by which multiple similarly situated parties get similar claims resolved at one time and in one federal forum. [Citations.]” ( Id. at p. 291.)
Granted, Sprint arose in the context of Article III, a “prudential standing” analysis. However, in reaching its decision that assignees had standing, the Court relied significantly on three California state decisions addressing assignment of rights under California law. (See Sprint, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 294-296.)
Under California law, assignment of claims is not a panacea. Not all claims can be assigned. In California, assignment is not allowed for tort causes of action based on “wrongs done to the person, the reputation or the feelings of an injured party,” including “causes of action for slander, assault and battery, negligent personal injuries, seduction, breach of marriage promise, and malicious prosecution.” ( AMCO, supra , 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 892 [exceptions to assignment also include “legal malpractice claims and certain types of fraud claims”].) Other assignments are statutorily prohibited. (See, e.g., Civ. Code, § 2985.1 [regulating assignment of real property sales contracts]; Gov. Code, § 8880.325 [state lottery prizes not assignable].)
Likewise, because a right of action cannot be split, a partial assignment will require the joinder of the partial assignor as an indispensable party. (See, e.g., Bank of the Orient v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 588, 595 [“[W]here . . . there has been a partial assignment all parties claiming an interest in the assignment must be joined as plaintiffs . . . ”]; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleadings, § 131(2), p. 198 [“If the assignor has made only a partial assignment, the assignor remains beneficially interested in the claim and the assignee cannot sue alone”].)
That said, California’s rules of law regarding standing and assignments do not prohibit an assignee’s aggregation of a large number of claims against a single defendant or multiple defendants into a single lawsuit. To the contrary, no limitations or conditions on this type of aggregation of assigned claims is imposed from other rules of law, such as California’s compulsory joinder statute. (See Sprint , supra , 554 U.S. at p. 292 [to address practical problems that might arise because aggregators, not payphone operators, were suing, district “court might grant a motion to join the payphone operators to the case as ‘required’ parties” under Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 19].)
There are many procedural approaches to evaluate when seeking to combine the claims of multiple plaintiffs. Class actions and joinders are more traditional methods that trial counsel rely on to bring claims together. Although a largely unexplored procedural approach, assignment appears to be an expedient way of combining the claims of numerous plaintiffs. It avoids the legal requirements imposed for class actions and joinders, and it sidesteps a trial judge’s discretion regarding whether to consolidate, relate, or coordinate actions. Indeed, under the right circumstances, an assignment of claims might provide a means of bypassing class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Perhaps an assignment of claims should be added to the mix of considerations when deciding how to bring a case involving numerous plaintiffs with similar claims against a common defendant or set of defendants.
Judith Posner is an attorney at Benedon & Serlin, LLP , a boutique appellate law firm.
Gerald Serlin is an attorney at Benedon & Serlin, LLP , a boutique appellate law firm.
Subject Matter Index
Copyright © 2023 by the author. For reprint permission, contact the publisher: Advocate Magazine
- Featured Articles
- Recent Issues
- Contributors Writer's Guidelines
- Search Advanced Search
- What’s New on the Watch?
- COVID-19 Updates
- Private Equity Webinar Series
- Private Equity Finance
- Global PE Update
- Glenn West Musings
- Quarterly Private Funds Update
- Ancillary Agreements
- Going Privates
- Legal Developments
- Minority Investments
- Portfolio Company Matters
- Purchase Agreements
- R&W Insurance
- Securities Laws
- Shareholder Agreements
- Specialist Areas
- Global Team
Watch your inbox.
Get the latest views and developments in the private equity world from the Global Private Equity Watch team at Weil.
Assignment of Claim after a Loss: What Homeowners Should Know
Let’s start with the basics. If you, as a homeowner, sustain property damage or losses because of a covered event (like a fire, for example), you will need your home repaired. You choose a contractor or restoration company to do the work – but the check from the insurance company has not come through yet, and you need them to start right away. So, what can you do?
You can sign an “assignment of claim,” which assigns your rights (as the policyholder) to benefits and proceeds from the loss, to the company or contractors. In the simplest of terms, the assignment of claim allows your contractor to get paid directly from the insurance company.
What is the anti-transfer clause in insurance?
However, many contractors and purchasers of the damaged property have found themselves in a tight spot over the years, because of something called the anti-transfer clause. As explained on the Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog , the anti-transfer clause usually reads something like this: “Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without our written consent except in the case of death of an individual named insured.” Sometimes, the insurance company requires written consent before an assignment of claim can be made.
This clause routinely allows insurers to deny payments to contractors – but it shouldn’t, when an assignment of claim is made post-loss.
What’s the difference between pre-loss vs. post-loss assignments?
The Courts of Tennessee have routinely ruled on behalf of contractors and purchasers who were assigned the claim after the loss occurred. That is because the original assignee – the homeowner – was approved by the insurance company in the first place, and because the damage occurred regardless. There was no additional risk for the insurance company. Therefore, even if the contractor has a long and storied history of rule-breaking (or even criminal activity), the homeowner can assign the claim however he or she chooses; after all, the loss already happened.
Where insurance companies can (and do) have a leg up is for pre-loss assignments. The insurance company underwrote the risk on Bob and Jane Homeowner because it felt confident enough to do so. Bob and Jane cannot assign their policy to another person without the approval of the insurer, even when no loss has occurred.
Even if there is an anti-transfer clause in your policy, the chances are very good that a post-loss assignment cannot be legally denied by your insurer. If it is, seek out an experienced insurance dispute lawyer to help you argue the denial.
One last note for Tennessee policyholders
In some cases, the insurance company may decide that the amount of your loss is worth less than the cost of the renovations for which the contractor is charging. If this happens, you could be on the hook for the remainder of the costs, depending, of course, on the language of the deal with your contractor.
Because of this risk, it’s wise to contact an attorney before making any decisions. Get informed about your rights from the start, and let your lawyer address any potential hiccups along the way. If your insurer lowballs your claim, your attorney can handle the dispute , to ensure that you are compensated fairly.
At McWherter Scott & Bobbitt, we have spent years fighting against unfair insurance claims policies in Tennessee and Mississippi. Let Brandon McWherter , Jonathan Bobbitt and Clint Scott put their knowledge and experience to work for you. Please call 731-664-1340 or fill out our contact form . We maintain offices in Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis, Jackson and Knoxville.
Brandon McWherter has dedicated his practice to assisting insurance policyholders with their claims against insurance companies, including claims for bad faith. He is licensed in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Learn More
Assignment of a claim or cause of action | Practical Law
Assignment of a claim or cause of action
Practical law uk practice note 1-522-7861 (approx. 31 pages).
31 U.S. Code § 3727 - Assignments of claims
In subsection (a)(1), the words “or share thereof” and “whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor” are omitted as surplus. In clause (2), the word “authorization” is substituted for “powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities” to eliminate unnecessary words.
In subsections (b) and (c), the word “official” is substituted for “officer” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.
In subsection (b), the words “Except as hereinafter provided” are omitted as unnecessary. The words “read and” are omitted as surplus. The words “to the person acknowledging the same” are omitted as unnecessary. The text of 31:203(1st par. last sentence) is omitted as superseded by 39:410. The words “Notwithstanding any law to the contrary governing the validity of assignments ” and the text of 31:203(last par.) are omitted as unnecessary.
In subsection (c), before clause (1), the words “bank, trust company, or other . . . including any Federal lending agency” are omitted as surplus. The words “of money due or to become due under a contract providing for payments totaling at least $1,000” are substituted for “in any case in which the moneys due or to become due from the United States or from any agency or department thereof, under a contract providing for payments aggregating $1,000 or more” to eliminate unnecessary words. The text of 31:203(2d par. proviso cl. 1) is omitted as executed. In clause (1), the words “in the case of any contract entered into after October 9, 1940 ” are omitted as executed. In clause (2)(A), the words “payable under such contract” are omitted as surplus. In clause (3), the words “true” and “instrument of” are omitted as surplus. The words “department or” are omitted because of the restatement. The words “if any” and “to make payment” are omitted as surplus.
In subsection (d), before clause (1), the words “During a war or national emergency proclaimed by the President or declared by law and ended by proclamation or law” are substituted for “in time of war or national emergency proclaimed by the President (including the national emergency proclaimed December 16, 1950 ) or by Act or joint resolution of the Congress and until such war or national emergency has been terminated in such manner” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “ Department of Energy (when carrying out duties and powers formerly carried out by the Atomic Energy Commission)” are substituted for “Atomic Energy Commission” (which was reconstituted as the Energy Research and Development Administration by 42:5813 and 5814) because of 42:7151(a) and 7293. The words “other department or . . . of the United States . . . except any such contract under which full payment has been made” and “of any moneys due or to become due under such contract” before “shall not be subject” are omitted as surplus. The words “A payment subsequently due under the contract (even after the war or emergency is ended) shall be paid to the assignee without” are substituted for “and if such provision or one to the same general effect has been at any time heretofore or is hereafter included or inserted in any such contract, payments to be made thereafter to an assignee of any moneys due or to become due under such contract, whether during or after such war or emergency . . . hereafter” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “of any nature” are omitted as surplus. In clause (1), the words “or any department or agency thereof” are omitted as unnecessary. In clause (2), the words “under any renegotiation statute or under any statutory renegotiation article in the contract” are omitted as surplus.
Subsection (e)(1) is substituted for 31:203(4th par.) to eliminate unnecessary words.
In subsection (e)(2), the words “person receiving an amount under an assignment or allotment” are substituted for “assignees, transferees, or allottees” for clarity and consistency. The words “or to others for them” and “with respect to such assignments , transfers, or allotments or the use of such moneys” are omitted as surplus. The words “person making the assignment or allotment” are substituted for “assignors, transferors, or allotters” for clarity and consistency.
Assignment of a Claim for Damages Template
- construction legal
- assignment agreement
- legal assignment
Download this Assignment of a Claim for Damages Template Design in Word, Google Docs, Apple Pages Format. Easily Editable, Printable, Downloadable.
An Assignment of Claim is a legal document used when transferring claims to someone else. Also, it can be used in transferring or assigning some liabilities, legal responsibilities, or damages. If you want to formulate a clear and concise document, grab our Assignment of a Claim for Damages template. It has well written suggestive content that you can either use as is or modify to fit your business. Download with little to no hassle onto your PC or mobile devices. Stop wasting time, and start making the best out of it by downloading this Assignment of a Claim for Damages template now!
Already a premium member? Sign in
You may also like
FAC Number: 2024-01 Effective Date: 11/14/2023
Subpart 32.8 - Assignment of Claims
32.800 scope of subpart..
This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the assignment of claims under the Assignment of Claims Act of1940, as amended, ( 31 U.S.C.3727 , 41 U.S.C.6305 ) (hereafter referred to as "the Act").
Designated agency , as used in this subpart, means any department or agency of the executive branch of the United States Government (see 32.803 (d)).
No-setoff commitment , as used in this subpart, means a contractual undertaking that, to the extent permitted by the Act, payments by the designated agency to the assignee under an assignment of claims will not be reduced to liquidate the indebtedness of the contractor to the Government.
Under the Assignment of Claims Act, a contractor may assign moneys due or to become due under a contract if all the following conditions are met:
(a) The contract specifies payments aggregating $1,000 or more.
(b) The assignment is made to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution, including any Federal lending agency.
(c) The contract does not prohibit the assignment.
(d) Unless otherwise expressly permitted in the contract, the assignment-
(1) Covers all unpaid amounts payable under the contract;
(2) Is made only to one party, except that any assignment may be made to one party as agent or trustee for two or more parties participating in the financing of the contract; and
(3) Is not subject to further assignment.
(e) The assignee sends a written notice of assignment together with a true copy of the assignment instrument to the-
(1) Contracting officer or the agency head ;
(2) Surety on any bond applicable to the contract; and
(3) Disbursing officer designated in the contract to make payment.
(a) Any assignment of claims that has been made under the Act to any type of financing institution listed in 32.802 (b) may thereafter be further assigned and reassigned to any such institution if the conditions in 32.802 (d) and (e) continue to be met.
(b) A contract may prohibit the assignment of claims if the agency determines the prohibition to be in the Government’s interest.
(c) Under a requirements or indefinite quantity type contract that authorizes ordering and payment by multiple Government activities, amounts due for individual orders for $1,000 or more may be assigned.
(d) Any contract of a designated agency (see FAR 32.801 ), except a contract under which full payment has been made, may include a no-setoff commitment only when a determination of need is made by the head of the agency , in accordance with the Presidential delegation of authority dated October 3,1995, and after such determination has been published in the Federal Register. The Presidential delegation makes such determinations of need subject to further guidance issued by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. The following guidance has been provided:
Use of the no-setoff provision may be appropriate to facilitate the national defense ; in the event of a national emergency or natural disaster; or when the use of the no-setoff provision may facilitate private financing of contract performance. However, in the event an offeror is significantly indebted to the United States , the contracting officer should consider whether the inclusion of the no-setoff commitment in a particular contract is in the best interests of the United States . In such an event, the contracting officer should consult with the Government officer(s) responsible for collecting the debt(s).
(e) When an assigned contract does not include a no-setoff commitment , the Government may apply against payments to the assignee any liability of the contractor to the Government arising independently of the assigned contract if the liability existed at the time notice of the assignment was received even though that liability had not yet matured so as to be due and payable.
32.804 Extent of assignee’s protection.
(a) No payments made by the Government to the assignee under any contract assigned in accordance with the Act may be recovered on account of any liability of the contractor to the Government. This immunity of the assignee is effective whether the contractor’s liability arises from or independently of the assigned contract.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the inclusion of a no-setoff commitment in an assigned contract entitles the assignee to receive contract payments free of reduction or setoff for-
(1) Any liability of the contractor to the Government arising independently of the contract; and
(2) Any of the following liabilities of the contractor to the Government arising from the assigned contract:
(i) Renegotiation under any statute or contract clause .
(iii) Penalties, exclusive of amounts that may be collected or withheld from the contractor under, or for failure to comply with, the terms of the contract.
(iv) Taxes or social security contributions.
(v) Withholding or nonwithholding of taxes or social security contributions.
(c) In some circumstances, a setoff may be appropriate even though the assigned contract includes a no-setoff commitment ; e.g.-
(1) When the assignee has neither made a loan under the assignment nor made a commitment to do so; or
(2) To the extent that the amount due on the contract exceeds the amount of any loans made or expected to be made under a firm commitment for financing.
(1) Assignments by corporations shall be-
(i) Executed by an authorized representative;
(ii) Attested by the secretary or the assistant secretary of the corporation; and
(iii) Impressed with the corporate seal or accompanied by a true copy of the resolution of the corporation’s board of directors authorizing the signing representative to execute the assignment.
(2) Assignments by a partnership may be signed by one partner, if the assignment is accompanied by adequate evidence that the signer is a general partner of the partnership and is authorized to execute assignments on behalf of the partner-ship.
(3) Assignments by an individual shall be signed by that individual and the signature acknowledged before a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths.
(b) Filing. The assignee shall forward to each party specified in 32.802 (e) an original and three copies of the notice of assignment, together with one true copy of the instrument of assignment. The true copy shall be a certified duplicate or photostat copy of the original assignment.
(c) Format for notice of assignment. The following is a suggested format for use by an assignee in providing the notice of assignment required by 32.802 (e).
Notice of Assignment
To: ___________ [ Address to one of the parties specified in 32.802 (e) ].
This has reference to Contract No. __________ dated ______, entered into between ______ [ Contractor’s name and address ] and ______ [ Government agency, name of office, and address ], for ________ [ Describe nature of the contract ].
Moneys due or to become due under the contract described above have been assigned to the undersigned under the provisions of the Assignment of Claims Act of1940, as amended, ( 31 U.S.C.3727 , 41 U.S.C.6305 ).
A true copy of the instrument of assignment executed by the Contractor on ___________ [ Date ], is attached to the original notice.
Payments due or to become due under this contract should be made to the undersigned assignee.
Please return to the undersigned the three enclosed copies of this notice with appropriate notations showing the date and hour of receipt, and signed by the person acknowledging receipt on behalf of the addressee.
Very truly yours,
__________________________________________________ [ Name of Assignee ]
By _______________________________________________ [ Signature of Signing Officer ]
__________________________________________________ [ Titleof Signing Officer ]
__________________________________________________ [ Address of Assignee ]
Receipt is acknowledged of the above notice and of a copy of the instrument of assignment. They were received ____(a.m.) (p.m.) on ______, 20___.
__________________________________________________ [ Signature ]
__________________________________________________ [ Title ]
__________________________________________________ On behalf of
__________________________________________________ [ Name of Addressee of this Notice ]
(d) Examination by the Government. In examining and processing notices of assignment and before acknowledging their receipt, contracting officers should assure that the following conditions and any additional conditions specified in agency regulations, have been met:
(1) The contract has been properly approved and executed.
(2) The contract is one under which claims may be assigned.
(3) The assignment covers only money due or to become due under the contract.
(4) The assignee is registered separately in the System for Award Management unless one of the exceptions in 4.1102 applies.
(e) Release of assignment.
(1) A release of an assignment is required whenever-
(i) There has been a further assignment or reassignment under the Act; or
(ii) The contractor wishes to reestablish its right to receive further payments after the contractor’s obligations to the assignee have been satisfied and a balance remains due under the contract.
(2) The assignee, under a further assignment or reassignment, in order to establish a right to receive payment from the Government, must file with the addressees listed in 32.802 (e) a-
(i) Written notice of release of the contractor by the assigning financing institution;
(ii) Copy of the release instrument;
(iii) Written notice of the further assignment or reassignment; and
(iv) Copy of the further assignment or reassignment instrument.
(3) If the assignee releases the contractor from an assignment of claims under a contract, the contractor, in order to establish a right to receive payment of the balance due under the contract, must file a written notice of release together with a true copy of the release of assignment instrument with the addressees noted in 32.802 (e).
(4) The addressee of a notice of release of assignment or the official acting on behalf of that addressee shall acknowledge receipt of the notice.
32.806 Contract clauses.
(1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.232-23 , Assignment of Claims , in solicitations and contracts expected to exceed the micro-purchase threshold , unless the contract will prohibit the assignment of claims (see 32.803 (b)). The use of the clause is not required for purchase orders . However, the clause may be used in purchase orders expected to exceed the micro-purchase threshold , that are accepted in writing by the contractor, if such use is consistent with agency policies and regulations.
(2) If a no-setoff commitment has been authorized (see 32.803 (d)), the contracting officer shall use the clause with its AlternateI.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.232-24 , Prohibition of Assignment of Claims , in solicitations and contracts for which a determination has been made under agency regulations that the prohibition of assignment of claims is in the Government’s interest.
- Data Initiatives
- Smart Matrix
- Regulations Search
- Acquisition Regulation Comparator (ARC)
- Large Agencies
- Small Agencies
- CAOC History
- CAOC Charter
- Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC)
- Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
- Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)
An official website of the General Services Administration
Assignment of a Claim for Damages Template
This assignment of a claim for damages template has 1 pages and is a MS Word file type listed under our legal agreements documents.
Sample of our assignment of a claim for damages template:
ASSIGNMENT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES This Assignment of a Claim for Damages (the �Assignment�) is made and effective [DATE], BETWEEN: [YOUR COMPANY NAME] (the "Assignor"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the [State/Province] of [STATE/PROVINCE], with its head office located at: [YOUR COMPLETE ADDRESS] AND: [ASSIGNEE NAME] (the "Assignee"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the [State/Province] of [STATE/PROVINCE], with its head office located at: [COMPLETE ADDRESS] FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the Assignor hereby sells and transfers to the Assignee and its successors, assigns
2,600+ templates & tools to help you start, run & grow your business, all the templates you need to plan, start, organize, manage, finance & grow your business, in one place., templates and tools to manage every aspect of your business., 8 business management modules, in 1 place., document types included.
- Advance Medical Directive Forms
- Affidavit and Declaration Forms
- Arbitration Forms
- Assignment Forms
- Auditor Forms
- Confidentiality Forms
- Court Forms
- Employment Contract Forms
- Energy and Environmental Forms
- Escrow Agreements
- Incorporation and Company Forms
- Independent Contractor Forms
- Intellectual Property Forms
- Landlord and Tenant Notices
- Law Office Management
- Letters of Intent
- Limited Liability Companies
- Marriage and Family Law
- Mergers, Amalgamations and Takeovers
- Partnerships and Joint Ventures
- Personal Guarantees
- Power of Attorney Forms
- Releases and Waivers
- Shareholder Forms
- Software Licensing and Development Forms
- Stock Options and Incentive Plans
- Trust Agreements
- Wills & Estate Planning Forms
- Advertising and Marketing Forms
- Animal Services Forms
- Bids, Tenders and Proposals
- Business and Marketing Plans
- Business Presentations
- Buying or Selling a Business
- Catering Forms
- Cleaning Contracts and Forms
- Construction Industry Forms
- Consulting Contract Forms
- Customer Service Forms
- Distributor and Dealership Agreements
- Equipment Sales and Leasing
- Film and TV Contracts
- Forms for Online Businesses
- Franchise Forms
- Graphic Arts Forms
- Health Services Forms
- Hotel Management Forms
- Information Technology Forms
- Manufacturing Forms
- Music Contracts
- Nanny and Childcare Forms
- Painting Contractor Forms
- Photographer Contracts
- Publishing Business Forms
- Purchasing Forms
- Restaurant Management Forms
- Roofing Contractor Forms
- Sales and Auction Forms
- Security Services
- Service Contracts
- Sports and Fitness Forms
- Starting Up a Small Business
- Storage Contracts and Parking Leases
- Vehicle Sales and Leasing Forms
- Website Development and Hosting
- Workplace Manuals and Policies
- Accounts Receivable & Credit Forms
- Asset Protection and Tax Planning
- Bankruptcy Forms
- Bill of Sale Forms
- Financial Service Contracts
- Insurance Forms
- Investor Forms
- Loan Transaction Forms
- Mortgage Forms
- Promissory Note Forms
- Retirement Planning Information
- Succession Planning
- Commercial Lease Forms
- Condominium and Strata Forms
- Facility Rental Forms
- Farm Land Leases
- Hunting and Fishing Leases
- Mobile Home Forms
- Property Appraisal Forms
- Real Estate Forms
- Rental Property Management Forms
- Residential Lease and Tenancy Forms
- Vacation Property Rental Forms
- Discount Plans
- UNITED KINGDOM
- UNITED STATES
- NEW ZEALAND
- Civil Actions
- Criminal Cases
- New South Wales
- Northern Territory
- South Australia
- Western Australia
- British Columbia
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland & Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Prince Edward Island
- New Hampshire
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
- District of Columbia
- BRITISH COLUMBIA
- NEW BRUNSWICK
- NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR
- NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
- NOVA SCOTIA
- PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
- YUKON TERRITORY
- NEW HAMPSHIRE
- NORTH CAROLINA
- NORTH DAKOTA
- RHODE ISLAND
- SOUTH CAROLINA
- SOUTH DAKOTA
- WEST VIRGINIA
- Free Celebrity Wills
- Cast and Crew Contracts
- Film Clearance and Release Forms
- Film Distribution and Licensing Forms
- Film Financing and Budget Forms
- Film Production Logs and Forms
- Film Tax Credit Forms
- Rental Contracts for Film and TV
- Script and Screenwriter Forms
- Soundtracks and Scores
- Theater Production Forms
- TV Production Contracts
- Video Production Forms
- Booking Agent & Manager Contracts
- Music Publishing Forms
- Recording Contract Forms
- Songwriter Contracts
- Australian Capital Territory
- Legal Forms /
- Assignment Forms /
Assignment of Claim for Damages
Assign a claim for damages in a legal action with this downloadable assignment form.
- The party who won the court case (the assignor) assigns and transfers his/her rights to a third party (the assignee).
- The assignee has the right to prosecute and collect the damages awarded in the claim.
- The form is editable and can be tailored to fit your special circumstances.
- Download the Assignment of Claim for Damages form immediately after purchasing it.
Covenant Not to Sue
USA Release of Damages Claim Against Hospital
Don't leave the hospital open to additional claims when settling a claim from a patient. get the patient to sign this release of damages claim as a condition of the settlement..
- The Release form is for medical damages claims in the United States.
- The patient releases the hospital from its present claim and from any future claims for damages, costs, expenses or compensation with respect to treatment the patient received in the hospital.
- The release is documentary evidence of full and complete settlement of the claim, and is intended to avoid litigation.
- This is a reusable legal form. When you purchase it, you can download it, save it, print it, use it as often as you like.
Assignment of Judgment to CMHC | Canada
Notice of Assignment of Judgment | Canada
- Glossary of Common Legal and Business Terms
- Find a Lawyer
- Legal In A Box
- About MegaDox
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Guest Bloggers
- Exchanges and Refunds
- Save Money with a Subscription or Discount Plan
- Conditions of Use
- Customer info
- Shopping cart
- Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- [email protected]
- 359-889-23-01-90; 359-889-23-01-90