assignment for claims

Enhanced Content - Details

40 U.S.C. 121(c) ; 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016 ); and 51 U.S.C. 20113 .

48 FR 42328 , Sept. 19, 1983, unless otherwise noted.

Enhanced Content - Print

Generate PDF

This content is from the eCFR and may include recent changes applied to the CFR. The official, published CFR, is updated annually and available below under "Published Edition". You can learn more about the process here .

Enhanced Content - Display Options

The eCFR is displayed with paragraphs split and indented to follow the hierarchy of the document. This is an automated process for user convenience only and is not intended to alter agency intent or existing codification.

A separate drafting site is available with paragraph structure matching the official CFR formatting. If you work for a Federal agency, use this drafting site when drafting amendatory language for Federal regulations: switch to eCFR drafting site .

Enhanced Content - Subscribe

Subscribe to: 48 CFR Part 32 Subpart 32.8

Enhanced Content - Timeline

• 5/26/2022 view on this date view change introduced  

Enhanced Content - Go to Date

Enhanced content - compare dates, enhanced content - published edition.

View the most recent official publication:

• View Title 48 on govinfo.gov
• View the PDF for 48 CFR Part 32 Subpart 32.8

These links go to the official, published CFR, which is updated annually. As a result, it may not include the most recent changes applied to the CFR. Learn more .

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:

• Hierarchy JSON - Title 48
• Content HTML - Subpart 32.8
• Content XML - Subpart 32.8

Information and documentation can be found in our developer resources .

eCFR Content

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the official legal print publication containing the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) is a continuously updated online version of the CFR. It is not an official legal edition of the CFR.

Enhanced Content

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 of 1940, as amended, ( 31 U.S.C. 3727 , 41 U.S.C. 6305 ) (hereafter referred to as the Act ).

[ 48 FR 42328 , Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 2665 , Jan. 17, 1986; 79 FR 24212 , Apr. 29, 2014]

32.801 Definitions.

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.

[ 48 FR 42328 , Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 49730 , Sept. 26, 1995; 66 FR 2132 , Jan. 10, 2001]

32.802 Conditions.

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.

32.803 Policies.

( 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.

[ 48 FR 42328 , Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 49730 , Sept. 26, 1995; 61 FR 18921 , Apr. 29, 1996]

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) below, 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.

( ii ) Fines.

( iii ) Penalties, exclusive of amounts that may be collected or witheld 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.

32.805 Procedure.

( a ) Assignments.

( 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 partnership.

( 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 of 1940, 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 ]

[ signature of signing officer

[ title of signing officer ]

[ address of assignee ]

Acknowledgement

Receipt is acknowledged of the above notice and of a copy of the instrument of assignment. They were received at ____ (a.m.) (p.m.) on ________, 20____.

[ signature ]

On behalf of

[ name of addressee of this notice ]

( d ) Examination by the Government. In examining and processing notices of assignment and before acknowleging 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.

[ 48 FR 42328 , Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 2665 , Jan. 17, 1986; 52 FR 9039 , Mar. 20, 1987; 62 FR 237 , Jan. 2, 1997; 64 FR 10533 , Mar. 4, 1999; 65 FR 24325 , Apr. 25, 2000; 68 FR 56673 , Oct. 1, 2003; 78 FR 37679 , June 21, 2013; 79 FR 24212 , Apr. 29, 2014]

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 FAR 32.803(d)), the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I.

( 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.

[ 48 FR 42328 , Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 2665 , Jan. 17, 1986; 60 FR 49730 , Sept. 26, 1995; 61 FR 18921 , Apr. 29, 1996]

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Legal Status
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

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 Claims

• First Online: 02 September 2017

Cite this chapter

• İlhan Helvacı 2  

485 Accesses

A claim arising from a contract or some other source of obligation, such as a tort or unjust enrichment, may be transferred to third parties. A claim may be transferred by an agreement, by a court order or by law. In this section, assignment of claims effected by agreement and those effected by a court decision or operation of law are analysed respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

For further explanations, see Kocaman ( 1989 ), Dayınlarlı ( 2008 ), Günergök ( 2014 ).

Cession des créances , Abtretung von Forderungen .

Becker ( 1941 ), art. 164, N. 4.

Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 304; Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 32–35; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1236; Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 521; Engel ( 1997 ), p. 872.

Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1237; Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 522; Engel ( 1997 ), p. 872; Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 305; Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 36.

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 247; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1237; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 571–574; Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 522.

Becker ( 1941 ), art. 164, N. 5; Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 305; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 240; Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 522.

Déclaration de volonté , Willenserklärung .

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 20; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 566.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 562–563; Reisoğlu ( 2014 ), p. 466; Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 449.

Acte de disposition , Verfügungsgeschäft . See Chap. 14 fn. 5–6.

Conversely, such a contract is an acquisitive transaction with regard to the assignee.

Pouvoir de disposer, Verfügungsmacht .

Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 306.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 560.

Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1231; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), pp. 241–242.

von Tuhr and Escher ( 1974 ), § 93, II, p. 333; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 560; Reisoğlu ( 2014 ), p. 465; Becker ( 1941 ), art. 164, N. 1. For further explanations see Honsell et al. ( 2003 ), art. 164, N. 23–25.

Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 449; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 569.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 563.

See Sect. 8.2.2 .

Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 449; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 566–567; Eren ( 2015 ), pp. 1234–1235.

See Sect. 29.2 .

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 19.

See Sect. 29.3 .

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 250; Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 61; Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 307.

Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 524; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 574–575; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1238.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 577.

Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 641; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 241; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 575.

See Sect. 26.4 .

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 251; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 577–578.

For further explanations, see Helvacı ( 2008 ).

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 170 fn. 30, cf. Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 651; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 260.

For further explanations see Çetiner ( 2010 ).

Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1240; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 576; Oğuzman et al. ( 2016 ), p. 1049, compare to Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 170, N. 9.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 576; Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 450.

Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 651; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 259; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 578.

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 170, N. 11; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 578; Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 651; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 260.

For further explanations see Günergök ( 2014 ).

Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 308.

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 167, N. 21; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 582–583; Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 452; Reisoğlu ( 2014 ), p. 470.

Becker ( 1941 ), art. 168, N. 7; Engel ( 1997 ), p. 884; Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 168, N. 4; Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 656; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 583–584.

Öz ( 1990 ), pp. 57–58.

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 252 ff ; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 586; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1241

See Sect. 18.4.2.2 .

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 169, N. 11; Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 658; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 587; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1241.

For further explanations see Engin ( 2002 ).

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 591.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 593.

See Sect. 24.2 .

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 266; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1227; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 596.

See Sect. 25.4.2 , fn. 43.

The transfer of possession is of a factual nature. The material transfer of possession must be complemented by the parties’ agreement (referred to as a real agreement) concerning the transfer of ownership or the constitution of rights in rem . The real agreement is a bilateral legal act and does not require any specific form. It may be formed by the parties’ express or implied declarations of will (intention).

Aybay A (2011) Borçlar hukuku dersleri genel bölüm. Filiz, İstanbul

Google Scholar  

Becker H (1941) Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Volume VI, Obligationenrecht, 1. Abteilung: Allgemeine Bestimmungen, Art. 1-183. Stämpfli, Bern

Berger B (2012) Allgemeines Schuldrecht. Stämpfli, Bern

Çetiner B (2010) Hapis hakkı. Filiz, İstanbul

Dayınlarlı K (2008) Borçlar kanununa göre alacağın temliki. Banka ve ticaret hukuku araştırma enstitüsü, Ankara

Engel P (1997) Traité des obligations en droit Suisse. Stämpfli, Bern

Engin Bİ (2002) Alacağı temlik edenin garanti sorumluluğu. Seçkin, Ankara

Eren F (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Yetkin, Ankara

Feyzioğlu FN (1977) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 2. Fakülteler, İstanbul

Gauch P, Schluep WR, Emmenegger S (2008) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, vol 2. Schulthess, Zürich

Günergök Ö (2014) Alacağın devrinde borçlunun hukuki durumu. Vedat, İstanbul

Helvacı İ (2008) Eski medenî kanunumuzla karşılaştırmalı olarak Türk medenî kanunu’na göre sözleşmeden doğan ipotek hakkı. On iki levha, İstanbul

Honsell H, Vogt NP, Wiegand W (eds) (2003) Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Obligationenrecht 1: Art. 1-529 OR. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel

Kılıçoğlu AM (2013) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Turhan, İstanbul

Kocaman AB (1989) Alacağın temlikinin benzer üçlü ilişkiler karşısındaki teorik sınırı sorunu. Banka ve ticaret hukuku araştırma enstitüsü, Ankara

Nomer HN (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Beta, İstanbul

Oğuzman K, Öz T (2016) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 2. Vedat, İstanbul

Oğuzman K, Seliçi Ö, Oktay-Özdemir S (2016) Eşya hukuku. Filiz, İstanbul

Oser H, Schönenberger W (1929) Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Volume V: Das Obligationenrecht, Erster Halbband: Art. 1-183. Schulthess, Zürich

Öz MT (1990) Öğreti ve uygulamada sebepsiz zenginleşme. Kazancı, İstanbul

Özsunay E (1983) Borçlar hukuku, vol I. Filiz, İstanbul

Reisoğlu S (2014) Türk borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Beta, İstanbul

Schwenzer I (2009) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil. Schulthess, Bern

Tekinay SS, Akman S, Burcuoğlu H, Altop A (1993) Tekinay borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Filiz, İstanbul

Tercier P (2004) Le droit des obligations. Schulthess, Zurich

Tercier P, Pichonnaz P, Develioğlu HM (2016) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. On iki levha, İstanbul

Thévenoz L, Werro F (éd) (2012) Commentaire romand code des obligations 1: art. 1-529 CO. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Bâle

von Tuhr A, Escher A (1974) Allgemeiner Teil des Schweizerischen Obligationenrecht, vol 2. Schulthess, Zürich

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Law, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

İlhan Helvacı

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Helvacı, İ. (2017). Assignment of Claims. In: Turkish Contract Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_32

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_32

Published : 02 September 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-60060-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-60061-1

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Assignment of Benefits vs Direction to Pay vs Assignment of Policy

Assignment of Benefits vs. Assignment of Policy

Assignment of Benefits forms, also known as AOBs, play a crucial role in the restoration industry’s contractor-client dynamics. These legal documents empower policyholders to transfer their insurance policy benefits to a third party, effectively connecting their restoration contractor directly to their insurance company. By doing so, policyholders can bypass many of the complications and anxieties typically associated with a restoration project, streamlining the process.

According to Josh Ehmke, Co-owner and General Consult at One Claim Solution , there’s a  common misunderstanding between assignment of benefits and assignment of policy. An assignment of policy refers to the transfer of the benefits and rights of an insurance policy from one party (the policyholder) to another party (the assignee).

“An assignment of policy is never going to be valid. In fact, I haven’t come across a state that allows an assignment of an insurance policy without the insurance company’s prior written consent,” Josh said. “The reason it’s not allowed is because it’s against public policy. It increases the insurance risk substantially.”

For example, a policyholder might have a history of filing numerous claims against their insurance provider, suggesting a pattern that they might be well-versed in exploiting certain loopholes and taking advantage of insurance companies. Additionally, there are concerns that they may not adequately maintain or safeguard their property, leading to an increased risk for the insurance company. 

“That is absolutely different from an assignment of benefits, which grants the rights the policyholder had to the payment under the policy to be transferred to the assignee,” Josh said. ”The only prerequisite for an assignment of benefits other than having a covered claim, is that the loss has already occurred. If you get an assignment of benefits before the loss occurs, that’s essentially a transfer of a policy.”

OCS recently encountered a case where the question arose regarding the scope of an assignment of benefits. Specifically, the issue was whether only the rights of the policyholder are transferred, or if the policyholder’s obligations are also transferred alongside the benefits under the assignment.

“By taking the assignment, the contractor doesn’t assume the policyholder’s obligations under that policy,” Josh said. “It’s very important to word your assignment of benefits appropriately to clearly state that you’re not agreeing to assume any of those policy obligations, and to specify which rights you want.”

Direction to Pay vs. Assignment of Benefits

Direction to pay (DTP) is a financial arrangement where the policyholder, who is entitled to receive an insurance claim payment, instructs the insurance company to pay the claim proceeds directly to a third party. This third party could be a vendor, contractor, service provider, or any other entity to whom the policyholder owes a debt or has entered into an agreement.

“The issue with direction to pay is that the carrier doesn’t have to honor it because it’s not enforceable,” Josh said. “It’s very limited in what it can do, whereas an assignment of benefits is much more powerful because it obligates the insurance company legally to pay you.”

According to Josh, DTP’s are rarely used, except in states like Texas and Florida where AOBs are detrimental to contractors or illegal.

“A DTP is better than nothing and allows you to at least show the carrier that the homeowner granted approval to request payment,” Josh said. “But outside of those situations, the direction to pay in my mind is worthless. When you can have an assignment of benefits, there’s no reason to have a direction to pay at all.”

A Final Word

Understanding the differences between an AOB, Assignment of Policy, and DTP is crucial because each term represents distinct legal and financial arrangements that can significantly impact insurance claims and policyholder rights. To learn more about the value of assignment of benefits in helping you navigate the restoration process, be sure to subscribe to our newsletter .

(602) 491-2588

[email protected]

335 E Germann Rd #340  Gilbert, AZ 85297

WHO WE SERVE

Partner With Us

PRIVACY POLICY

All rights reserved. Copyright © 2024.

Connor Trahan

Account executive.

Hi there! I’m Connor, the Account Executive for One Claim. My goal is to guide our contractors through the sales process, ensuring you’re equipped with all the information you need to make your decision and hit the ground running once aboard. We view ourselves as an extension of your business and I strive to make the process an enlightening and consultative one. My career has primarily been focused in software sales over a few different industries but the last few years were spent helping general contractors solve similar problems to what we’re doing here at OCS! Outside of work, I love spending time with my family, cooking and boating during the summer months.

Nicole Liesenfelt

Director, human resources.

Hello! I’m Nicole, and I’m here to champion for our employees, recruit for new talent, and impact culture at One Claim Solution. I find satisfaction in supporting a memorable employee experience and bring innovation, problem solving, and strategic view to the process. Nothing is more important than our people, and a healthy culture is my top priority! I have had the pleasure of building my career in various sectors, specializing in small to medium size firms focused on high-growth. My experience is centered around driving and implementing change, leading high-performing teams, and driving process improvements. I am excited to make an impact at One Claim. Outside of work, my family and I enjoy getting outdoors as much as possible to explore beautiful Colorado!

Elizabeth McGlone

Demand generation manager.

Great to meet you! I’m Elizabeth, and I’m the one behind all the emails and advertisements you’ve been seeing. As the Demand Generation Manager at One Claim Solution, my mission is to connect with contractors like you who need our services. I’m passionate about having an impact on others and I bring a wealth of experience in demand generation and marketing strategy to create moments of delight, curiosity, and education for you.

Prior to One Claim Solution, I had the privilege of building marketing departments from the ground up at companies in a variety of industries, including IT consulting, first protection, and healthcare. Personally, I love being outdoors, playing Dungeons and Dragons and board games, singing, and traveling.

Alisha Yartzoff

Director of contractor success.

Welcome! I’m Alisha, and I’m here to champion your success as the Director of Contractor Success at One Claim. With a passion for helping contractors thrive, I bring a wealth of experience in onboarding, customer service, and account management to ensure your journey with us is nothing short of exceptional.

Prior to joining One Claim, I had the privilege of scaling SMB and Enterprise Customer Success teams at fast-growing SaaS startups. With over six years of experience at companies like Mavenlink, Teamwork, and ServiceTitan, I honed my expertise in building high-performing teams and fostering proactive, consultative relationships. This background has equipped me with a deep understanding of the challenges faced by businesses like yours, and I’m dedicated to helping you overcome them.

Hi there, my name is Eric! I am the Chief Technology Officer here at OCS, spearheading our technical strategy. I have a background in computer science, graduating cum laude from BYU-Idaho with a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Information Technology.

Before coming to One Claim, I served as the Director of Engineering at Slingshot Technology, Inc., a company later acquired by WorkWave in 2021. My professional journey has spanned both emerging startups and established corporations, with a steadfast focus on cultivating high-trust, low bureaucracy teams and innovating technology using agile methodologies.

In my free time, you can find me flying drones, enjoying the outdoors, and spending time with my family.

Hello, my name is Cam, I’m the COO of One Claim Solution! I come from a management consulting background (Bain & Company) and hold an MBA from the University of Michigan. I have worked at a wide variety of organizations, from Fortune 500 to small-cap, in an equally wide variety of industries. I have over 15 years of experience in operations and strategic growth, and I have spent much of my career focused on developing high-performing tech-enabled service organizations through early stage and high growth phases.

Outside of work, my wife Brittny and I have four kids, ages 13 to 6. As residents of Mesa, Arizona, we love to ski and explore the national parks of the southwest!

Hello, my name is Dan, and I am the CEO of One Claim Solution. I am super excited by everything we are doing at OCS to be the market leading insurance billing specialist that advocates on behalf of our restoration contractors. 

My professional experiences are predominantly corporate in nature. My career started at General Electric in finance and accounting. Immediately prior to joining OCS, I spent time as an investor at Bondcliff Partners and management consultant with Bain & Company. I also hold an MBA from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and got my BS in finance and accounting from Northeastern University.

Outside of the office, I enjoy spending time with my wife, two young children, and our family dog, Whiskey. We live in Charleston, SC and take advantage of the beautiful weather by spending as much time as possible outside at the beach or adventuring around town

Co-Founder and General Counsel

Hi, I’m Josh! In 2016, I co-founded One Claim Solution with my partner Jeremy Traasdahl, and I serve as General Counsel of One Claim Solution. Working in the restoration industry, Jeremy and I saw contractors struggling to get paid quickly and fairly and we knew there was a need for change. We founded One Claim Solution to be this change and it’s been my privilege to see our company grow and to advocate for our clients as general counsel.

Outside of my passion for helping the restoration industry, I enjoy spending time outdoors, fly-fishing, hunting, skiing, and coaching my kids’ baseball teams. I’ve been married to my amazing wife for 20 years and we have a beautiful family of 5 children.

Jeremy Traasdahl

Hey, I’m Jeremy! In 2016, I co-founded One Claim Solution with my partner Josh Ehmke. Working in the restoration industry, Josh and I saw contractors struggling to get paid quickly and fairly and we knew there was a need for change. We founded One Claim Solution to be this change and it’s been my privilege to lead our amazing team.

Prior to One Claim Solution, I started my career as an inside sales rep for Avnet, then moved to Pepsico as a district sales manager. Outside of work, I love spending time with my wife and four children, two boys and two girls!

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.

Class actions

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.)

Consolidation

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.

Coordination

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

Judith Posner is an attorney at Benedon & Serlin, LLP , a boutique appellate law firm.

Gerald Serlin

Gerald Serlin is an attorney at Benedon & Serlin, LLP , a boutique appellate law firm.

Subject Matter Index

Copyright © 2024 by the author. For reprint permission, contact the publisher: Advocate Magazine

• Featured Articles
• Recent Issues
• Advertising
• Contributors Writer's Guidelines
• Search Advanced Search

• Practical Law

Assignment of a claim or cause of action

Practical law uk practice note 1-522-7861  (approx. 32 pages), get full access to this document with a free trial.

Try free and see for yourself how Practical Law resources can improve productivity, efficiency and response times.

About Practical Law

This document is from Thomson Reuters Practical Law, the legal know-how that goes beyond primary law and traditional legal research to give lawyers a better starting point. We provide standard documents, checklists, legal updates, how-to guides, and more.

650+ full-time experienced lawyer editors globally create and maintain timely, reliable and accurate resources across all major practice areas.

83% of customers are highly satisfied with Practical Law and would recommend to a colleague.

81% of customers agree that Practical Law saves them time.

• Property: restructuring & insolvency
• Court proceedings: restructuring & insolvency
• Restructuring and Insolvency Transactions
• Regulation, Powers and Duties of Insolvency Practitioners

• Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

• Contract Administration

Assignment of Claims and Power of Attorney

By earbinov December 6, 2018 in Contract Administration

• Start new topic

Recommended Posts

I work at a financial institution that lends to small business government contractors. 

We've had a borrower go radio silent on us and they are in default on their debt with my company. The loan agreement provides us with the irrevocable right to act as power of attorney/agent-in-fact for the borrower. As such, we've prepared a number of assignment of claims documents to ensure that we are perfecting our security interest and that the payments associated with the contracts under which the borrower is performing will be routed to our control account to pay down all outstanding balances. 

We are getting pushback from certain COs stating that the borrower has intervened and since they have privity of contract, they would need to approve of any assignment. I have provided the loan agreement and other loan documents (including a cooperation agreement and a deposit account control agreement), all of which essentially require the borrower to not interfere with any efforts by us to perfect our security interest in the collateral (namely, the A/R related to all government contracts). 

Is there anything I can say or do here short of seeking an injunction to compel the COs to effectuate the aforementioned assignments. My understanding is that effectuating an assignment of claims is a ministerial act. Unless the contract contains a clause prohibiting the assignment (and assuming the contract  contains  the clause permitting it), then there is no discretion afforded to the CO assuming a valid assignment is submitted. In this case, I'm assuming that the bank signing using POA does provide for a valid assignment, but perhaps that is not a correct assumption. 

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

Have you complied with FAR 32.802(e)?

Are you registered in SAM amenable to FAR 32.805(d)(4)?

FAR 32.805(a)(1), (2), and (3) list who make assignments -- a contractor's attorney-in-fact is not listed there.  Could that be part of the problem?

Quote 5 hours ago, ji20874 said: Have you complied with FAR 32.802(e)?  Are you registered in SAM amenable to FAR 32.805(d)(4)? FAR 32.805(a)(1), (2), and (3) list who make assignments -- a contractor's attorney-in-fact is not listed there.  Could that be part of the problem?  

Yes, I have compiled and always do comply with FAR 32.802(e). For what it's worth, I'm a former Contract Specialist so I know my way around the FAR and how to communicate with COs. 

Yes - we are registered in SAM. 

With respect to FAR 32.805(a)(1), (2), and (3) - while it is true that a contractor's attorney-in-fact is not listed there, that same list only specifies requirements for corporations, partnerships, and individuals. Many of our borrowers are LLCs and so the FAR is silent on how to treat those types of entities. Furthermore, unless something is explicitly and specifically prohibited in the FAR, the CO/specialist can generally exercise their best judgment (See FAR 1.102(d)). Lastly, the underlying common denominator between these sections is that whoever is signing the assignment is authorized to do so. I believe I've provided sufficient evidence and context which supports the bank signing using power of attorney privileges.  

joel hoffman

I would suggest requesting a face to face meeting with the KO and request that government counsel also be present. Then lay out your legal arguments. Time is of the essence here. 

Perhaps you’ve done that already. 

If the KO and the government’s attorney don’t provide satisfaction, then- as the Swamp People would cry out v“Chute ‘em,   Lizbeth!!!”

I should add that our borrower has explicitly intervened and advised the government to not process any assignment and that they do not approve. I am arguing to the contracting officer that the assignment package we've submitted is valid, and therefore should be effectuated immediately. Notwithstanding protests from the borrower, once a valid notice of assignment is received, the Government is compelled to process the assignment as it is a ministerial act. However strange it may be for a contractor to plainly oppose an assignment, I feel that the contractor (our borrower) has essentially revoked their authority to weigh in on the matter once they signed the loan agreement and appointed us as power of attorney. Also, I'm arguing that the FAR lays out the procedure for the release of claims, and emails/calls stating they don't want an assignment are not included in those procedures. 

Lastly, the following case law supports my argument that the assignment should be effective, so long as it is valid, upon receipt and acknowledgment, which the Government has now indicated/signaled:

US Court of Appeals -  CENTRAL NAT. BANK OF RICHMOND, VA. v.   UNITED STATES.

Excerpt : "Generally, notice of an assignment is effective as of the time of its receipt, and according to official Government records, the plaintiff's notices were all received prior to the disbursement made"

"Plaintiff's assignment was made pursuant to the Act of 1940 and notice thereof was given in the manner and to the officials as required. Having so complied with the act, plaintiff [bank] is entitled to that degree of protection ordinarily given to an innocent assignee who acts in good faith."

The Comptroller General has "Recogniz[ed] that, in legal effect, acknowledgment of receipt was nothing more than a recognition that the documents had been received..."    [in other words, merely a ministerial act, without discretion to decide if the assignment will be "accepted"]

" We can perceive of no good reason why the various offices to whom notices of assignment are to be given under the act should not be held to the same degree of responsibility and liability as any others to whom such notices are given in everyday commercial transactions."

"The Government having received timely notice of plaintiff's assignment paid [contractor/assignor] at its peril."

Comptroller General Warren to the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (see attached)

Excerpt : " ASSIGNMENTS MADE UNDER THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF 1940 WILL BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY UPON THEIR RECEIPT, WITHOUT PRIOR EXAMINATION, SUCH ACKNOWLEDGMENT IMPLYING NOTHING MORE THAN A RECOGNITION THAT THE NOTICES OF ASSIGNMENT AND ASSIGNMENT INSTRUMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, LEAVING ANY QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OR REGULARITY OF THE ASSIGNMENT FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUDIT OF PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE CONTRACTS INVOLVED."

" SINCE, IN LEGAL EFFECT, THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT BY THIS OFFICE IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE WORD IMPLIES—- A RECOGNITION THAT THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE—- AND IN VIEW OF THE DIFFICULTIES ILLUMINATED BY YOUR LETTER AND ENCLOSURES, THIS OFFICE SHALL HENCEFORTH ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICES OF ASSIGNMENT AND ASSIGNMENT INSTRUMENTS IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT THEREOF WITHOUT PRIOR EXAMINATION—- LEAVING ANY QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OR REGULARITY OF THE ASSIGNMENT FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUDIT OF PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE CONTRACT INVOLVED."

" IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT HENCEFORTH THE PROCESS OF ACKNOWLEDGING SUCH NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT WILL BE PURELY MINISTERIAL IN NATURE AND IN NO SENSE AN INDICATION THAT THE ASSIGNMENT HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN THIS OFFICE AND FOUND TO BE REGULAR AND VALID."

GAO Decision B-270801:

https://www.gao.gov/products/470539#mt=e-report

Excerpt : “It is well-settled that once an obligor (the United States in this case) has notice of a valid assignment, as in the present case, it pays the assignor at its peril and is, therefore, liable to the assignee for the amount of the erroneous payment."  [Citing Central Bank of Richmond, Virginia v. United States, 117 Ct. Cl. 389 (1950)).

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.doc

Great, so problem solved ! Good luck. 

You may be barking up the wrong tree.  Is there case law where the assignment was made by power of attorney (assignor (the bank) and assignee (the bank) are the same), over the objection of the contractor (who is supposed to be the assignor)?  I think that is your problem area.  

36 minutes ago, ji20874 said: You may be barking up the wrong tree.  Is there case law where the assignment was made by power of attorney (assignor (the bank) and assignee (the bank) are the same), over the objection of the contractor (who is supposed to be the assignor)?  I think that is your problem area.  

Yeah - that's the grey area here. The FAR is silent on how to treat LLCs with respect to 32.8, and I couldn't find any case law on this particular question - that is, executing an assignment as agent-in-fact. To be clear, the assignor is still the borrower (with whom the government has privity), despite the fact that the bank is signing as their agent-in-fact. The question is whether signing as agent-in-fact comports with 32.8. 

Ultimately, I think it's a judgement call of each KO. If we game this out...the bank would sue the borrower and, absent them filing for bankruptcy, we would likely get summary judgement resulting in an injunction that compels the borrower to sign any document we need them to. If they don't sign (as they are choosing to do now), then I would be very surprised if, after we sent all of the legal supporting documentation (summary judgement/injunction) with each assignment, any KO would still refuse to process/effectuate the assignment. 

At that point, we may  then arguably go after the Government for all amounts paid to the contractor after receipt of the notice, depending on if a court finds the notice signed using POA is valid. If it's valid, the government would have to pay. 

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 10:43 PM, earbinov said: I am arguing to the contracting officer that the assignment package we've submitted is valid, and therefore should be effectuated immediately.

In addition to what ji wrote, we only have your opinion that there is a valid assignment.  We have no way of knowing whether that is true and whether you have been able to demonstrate the validity of the assignment to the various COs.

29 minutes ago, Retreadfed said: In addition to what ji wrote, we only have your opinion that there is a valid assignment.  We have no way of knowing whether that is true and whether you have been able to demonstrate the validity of the assignment to the various COs.

Agreed. Are you a CO? I'm curious what your opinion is here given the fact pattern presented above on if the submitted package is valid. 

I am  retired from the Federal government and now work in the private sector.  However, some issues I see are what is the precise language of the power of attorney? What is the law of the state that governs your transaction with the contractor in regard to powers of attorney?  What language is in the contracts regarding assignment?  What specific objections to the COs have to recognizing the assignment?  What have you done to alleviate their concerns?

• 5 yr bob7947 locked this topic

• Existing user? Sign In
• Forum Archive
• Top Posters
• Online Users
• Wifcon Home Page
• Breaking News
• Wifcon Contents Page
• Small Business
• Regulations
• FAR Research
• Quickit Guidance
• Bona Fide Needs Rule
• Main Protests Page
• Protests By FAR Part & Subpart
• Protests By Circular A-76
• Protests by Issue
• Protests by Rules of Legal Forum
• Protest By Name
• GAO Protests Statistics -- Since 1997
• Contracting Legislation of the Current Congress
• Public Laws & Citations
• Analysis & Articles
• Book Reviews
• Publications Memorialized by Wifcon.com
• All Activity
• My Activity Streams
• Unread Content
• Content I Started
• Manage Purchases
• Personal Information
• Alternative Contacts
• Leaderboard
• Create New...

Types of Claims – assigned and non assigned claims

Jun 9, 2010 | Medical billing basics

Medical Billing Update

• Medicare and its plans
• Denials and Action – Lacks of Information
• Ambulatory Surgical Billing
• EFT Helpful Hints
• Global Surgery General Information part 2

Recent Posts

• Origin and Destination modifiers in Ambulance billing
• CPT code 88120, 81161 – 81408 – molecular cpt codes
• Denial – Covered by capitation , Modifier inconsistent – Action
• CPT code 10040, 10060, 10061 – Incision And Drainage Of Abscess
• CPT Code 0007U, 0008U, 0009U – Drug Test(S), Presumptive
• Medical billing basics

All the contents and articles are based on our search and taken from various resources and our knowledge in Medical billing. All the information are educational purpose only and we are not guarantee of accuracy of information. Before implement anything please do your own research. If you feel some of our contents are misused please mail us at medicalbilling4u at gmail dot com. We will response ASAP.

• Nationals Promote Dylan Crews
• Cardinals Place Willson Contreras On 15-Day IL Due To Finger Fracture
• Giants, Matt Chapman Have “Had Conversations” About Potential Extension
• Mariners Hire Edgar Martinez As Hitting Coach For Rest Of 2024
• Padres Reinstate Yu Darvish From Restricted List
• Mariners Fire Scott Servais, Hire Dan Wilson As Manager
• Hoops Rumors
• Pro Football Rumors
• Pro Hockey Rumors

MLB Trade Rumors

Orioles Claim Brooks Kriske, Designate Nick Vespi For Assignment

By Mark Polishuk | August 25, 2024 at 12:57pm CDT

The Orioles announced that right-hander Brooks Kriske was claimed off waivers from the Reds, then assigned to Triple-A Norfolk.  As reported by MASNsports.com’s Roch Kubatko ( X link ) earlier today, left-hander Nick Vespi was designated for assignment to create an opening on Baltimore’s 40-man roster.

Cincinnati designed Kriske for assignment earlier this week, and the righty now returns to one of his former teams.  Kriske posted a 12.27 ERA over four games and 3 2/3 innings with the Orioles in 2021, before the O’s released him following the season so Kriske could sign with the Yokohama BayStars of Nippon Professional Baseball.  After his season in Japan, Kriske returned to North America on a minors deal with the Royals and delivered a 4.05 ERA in 6 2/3 innings in 2023, before heading back to NPB for a brief stint with the Seibu Lions.

Kriske then signed a minors deal with the Reds this past winter, and didn’t see any big league action despite a brief stint on Cincinnati’s active roster back in June.  He had a 3.10 ERA and eye-opening 36.7% strikeout rate in 49 1/3 innings at Triple-A Louisville, albeit with the red flags of an inflated 14.8% walk rate and a very favorable .205 BABIP.  The numbers essentially continue the story of Kriske’s career, as the 30-year-old has long struggled with his control while also missing a lot of bats.

The resume was intriguing enough for the Orioles to bring Kriske in for another look in the organization, though if he does get called up to the majors, Kriske lacks some flexibility since he is out of minor league options.  Vespi is in his final option year, and he has been recalled and demoted from Triple-A the maximum five times this season, which undoubtedly factored into Baltimore’s decision to send the southpaw to the DFA wire.

Vespi has frequently been shuttled back and forth between Baltimore and Norfolk during his three Major League seasons, as the O’s haven’t felt compelled to give Vespi an extended look despite some pretty solid performance.  Vespi has a 3.88 ERA over his 53 1/3 career MLB innings, including a 2.92 ERA in 12 1/3 frames in 2024.  In something of the inverse of Kriske, Vespi is a control specialist (5.9% walk rate in the bigs) who doesn’t record many strikeouts (20.9K%).

Strangely, Vespi’s walk rate has gone through the roof during his time at Triple-A this season, with a huge 15.9% walk rate contributing to his 7.71 ERA over 37 1/3 innings in Norfolk.  Both the walk rate and the ERA seem like outliers against Vespi’s otherwise solid career record at the Triple-A level, and other teams might not be dissuaded from putting in a waiver claim to obtain his rights.

31 Comments

22 hours ago

For some reason I picture him driving a Vespa.

Also, I keep reading “Barry Kripke” and picturing the inside of a comic book store every time Kriske’s name pops up here.

Solid pickup. Looking at his bref page his era has more double digits than anyone i’ve ever seen. Another Elias contingency plan to actually trading for a real pitcher. Could have gotten Kopech for Norby, without question. Instead decided to trade for Cole Irvin’s twin and beg for help on the waiver wire. SOLID

Without question, eh? How’s the view from the CHW front office?

19 hours ago

Bro, it’s another beautiful summer day in Chicago, so the view is good. The team is awful and my boss (owner Jerry) blows, but I’m living the dream.

21 hours ago

Honestly, Getz probably would have declined that offer and counter-offered with Kopech for Norby and Holliday because he is an incompetent clown that is in way over his head as an MLB GM.

King, I wish I could argue this one, but you’re probably right. Making Kopech a throw-in when it was a seller’s market shows that Getz was in over his head and probably would have screwed that trade up too.

This one doesn’t make sense to me at all

It’s a kriske move for sure…

Replacing a Vespi with a Krispy Kreme

Say it ain’t so

Grasping for straws

The K rate is sexy, I guess?

I mean, yeah, he doesn’t give up a lot of hits and strikes out a lot of guys in AAA, but his big league trials up to this point have been batting practice.

Vespi has actually been decent though, whereas Kriske has never really been decent at the MLB level, and his BB rate and BABIP at AAA this year don’t inspire much confidence that that’s going to change dramatically in the next month or so.

The Os seem convinced that players who can’t strike guys out won’t make it as relievers. They have worlds of chances to Baumman, but Vespi gets little. Idk. Their bullpen is ok, but not great.

WTF is Elias thinking? He looks worse with every new transaction

I don’t really like this move, but I get it. The guy has an almost 37% K rate at AAA this year, so why not see if we can get something out of him? Vespi isn’t a huge loss if not.

O’s seemed to have been doing better with the roster they had and continuity… all of a sudden players are coming in and out the door like a Vegas cat house

The Orioles claimed Kriske and immediately optioned him. However the article continued to say that if he is called up he is out of options. And Kriske has been optioned only twice this year so he’s not close to the five times rule.

Not sure if there was an edit, but the write up correctly states he was assigned to AAA. He wasn’t on CIN 40 man so optioning was not a requirement.

Then why did the Orioles DFA Vespi? If Kriske is out of options he can’t be on the 40 man roster and on option assignment. The MLB page said he was optioned

18 hours ago

Geo, you can have your contract purchased to the big league club (added to 40 man) and still be on optional assigment.

That is true. The article said Kriske can’t be optioned if he is recalled. I think the writer confused him with Vespi. Vespi has been sent down 5 times. If he gets recalled he can’t be optioned again without clearing waivers.

Kriske was on Cincy’s 40-man until he was DFA’d a few days ago. He had been on optional assignment with the Reds’ AAA team. So he apparently still has an option which the O’s should be able to use – and it seems like that’s exactly what they’ve done.

About the 5 times rule, my understanding is that it’s team-specific. Kriske would start with a clean slate and Baltimore would be able to option him up to 5 times.

Same with any team that picks up Vespi. And maybe it would even reset if Vespi passes through waivers, stays with the O’s, and eventually gets added back to the 40-man.

Who cares about options when a guy is awful? Does Elias value flexibility above ability?

16 hours ago

Orioles constantly getting rid of mediocre relievers for almost mediocre receivers

13 hours ago

Why? I’m a Reds fan and I’ve seen nothing encouraging about this guy..

51 seconds ago

Twins should grab Vespa if they get the opportunity. We’re desperate for a good lefty in our pen…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Please login to leave a reply.

Log in Register

• Feeds by Team
• Commenting Policy
• Privacy Policy

MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Your Teams. All Sources.

© 2024 BVM Sports. Best Version Media, LLC.

Orioles Claim Brooks Kriske, Designate Nick Vespi For Assignment

The Orioles announced that right-hander Brooks Kriske was claimed off waivers from the Reds, then assigned to Triple-A Norfolk. As reported by MASNsports.com’s Roch Kubatko (X link) earlier today, left-hander Nick Vespi was designated for assignment to create an opening on Baltimore’s 40-man roster. More to come…. Share 0 Retweet 0 Send via email0 Baltimore Orioles Cincinnati Reds Transactions Brooks Kriske Nick Vespi Mets Place Paul Blackburn On 15-Day Injured List Main ...

Read more at MLB Trade Rumors

Top Leagues

Does your team or athlete deserve recognition tell us submit your story, photo or video..

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.

OK Privacy policy

Filing a claim

You should only need to file a claim in very rare cases. .

• Original Medicare : If you have Original Medicare , the law requires your doctor, provider, or supplier to file Medicare claims for covered services and supplies you get. 
• Medicare drug plans : If you have a separate Medicare drug plan (Part D) , the pharmacy will file a claim directly with your plan.
• Medicare health plans : If you have a Medicare Advantage (Part C) plan (with or without drug coverage), and use in-network doctors, suppliers, and pharmacies, they’ll usually submit a claim directly to your plan.

How do I file a claim?

You can download and fill out a form, called the Patient Request for Medical Payment form (CMS-1490S) . This form is also available in Spanish.

What do I submit with the claim?

Follow the instructions on the form for the type of claim you're filing. Generally, you’ll need to submit:

• The completed claim form (Patient Request for Medical Payment form (CMS-1490S)
• The itemized bill from your doctor, supplier, or other health care provider
• A letter explaining why you’re submitting the claim (like if your provider or supplier isn’t able to file the claim, refuses to file the claim, or isn’t enrolled in Medicare)
• Any supporting documents related to your claim (like notes from your doctor)

Where do I send the claim?

If you have Original Medicare, you'll need to mail your claim form, itemized bill and supporting documents to the address for your state, which is listed on the Medicare Administrative Contractor Address Table within the claim form .

Who can help me file a claim?

• State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP): Visit shiphelp.org to get the phone number for your local SHIP and get free, personalized health insurance counseling. SHIPs are state programs that get money from the federal government to give free local health insurance counseling to people with Medicare.
• Medicare: You can also contact us for help. Talk or live chat with a real person , 24 hours a day, 7 days week (except some federal holidays) by calling 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227). TTY users can call 1-877-486-2048 .
• Representative: If you have a family member or friend helping you with a complaint, you can appoint them as a representative. Download and share your claims with trusted sources.   How do I appoint a representative?

What are the timeframes for filing a claim?

Medicare claims must be filed no later than 12 months (or 1 full calendar year) after the date when the services were provided unless an exception applies. If a claim isn't filed within this time, Medicare won't pay its share. How can I check the status of a claim once I've filed it?  

Example: If you see your doctor on March 22, 2019, your doctor must have filed the Medicare claim for that visit by March 22, 2020. Check the " Medicare Summary Notice " (MSN) you get in the mail, log into your secure Medicare account , or check your plan's claims statements to make sure claims are being filed in a timely way.

Why did I get a bill, and what do I do with it?

If you get a bill, it could be because your doctor, provider, or supplier:

• Doesn’t accept assignment
• Opted-out of Medicare and entered into a private contract with you
• Gave you services that aren’t covered by Medicare
• Didn’t collect the Medicare deductible and coinsurance amounts you owe when you got services

You might have to either pay the bill or, in rare cases, submit your own claim. 

If claim hasn’t been filed on your behalf, contact your doctor, provider, or supplier, and ask them to file a claim for the service or supply you got. 

If you have contacted your doctor, provider, or supplier, and they haven’t filed your claim, call us at 1-800-MEDICARE.  Ask for the exact time limit for filing a Medicare claim for the service or supply you got. If it's close to the end of that time limit and your doctor, provider, or supplier still hasn't filed a claim, you should file the claim.

Can I submit a claim if I already paid out-of-pocket?

Yes. If you had to pay out of pocket for services or supplies because your doctor, provider, or supplier refused to submit a claim, you’ll have to submit your own claim. 

If you had to pay out of pocket for a vaccine or prescription that was covered by Medicare recently, but hasn’t been added to your plan’s formulary yet, you may need to file a claim if you want to be paid back.

What if I disagree with a coverage or payment decision?

If you disagree with a decision by Medicare or your Medicare plan, you can file an appeal. Learn more about filing an appeal.  

Share your claims

Use your Medicare account to download your Medicare claims data and share it with someone you trust to help you.

Check claim status

Learn how to check the status of a claim based on the kind of coverage you have.

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan 2022 – 2026

Discover more.

Download the Strategy (PDF)

Access the Fact Sheet

Read tHE EXECUTIVE ORDER

Message from the Secretary of State

The State Department is our nation’s oldest cabinet agency, our nation’s lead foreign affairs agency, and its employees are the face of the United States to the rest of the world.  In order to effectively pursue our foreign policy goals and ensure our national security, it is imperative we create a workforce that truly reflects the country we represent.  

Our country’s diversity is our greatest strength.  When we fully leverage everyone and everything our nation has to offer, our foreign policy is stronger, smarter, and more creative.  As I said in my confirmation hearing, I will measure the success of my tenure based on how well we can recruit and retain a workforce that looks like America.  Within the first few months of my administration, I appointed the Department’s first-ever stand-alone Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, who reports directly to me and leads the newly created Secretary’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.  I also created the Diversity and Inclusion Leadership Council to help achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the following Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Strategic Plan.  

Together, we will ensure that the Department of State is a leader in government-wide efforts to advance DEIA goals for the federal workforce.  In doing that, we will also be able to ensure that the Department itself is in the strongest possible position to deliver for the U.S. people in an increasingly diverse, complex, and interconnected world.   

Historic Plan to Advance Equity in U.S. Foreign Policy  

Diversity Is an Essential Component of the U.S. Diplomatic Corps  

Honoring an Ancestor, Carrying Forward a Legacy  

U.s. department of state, the lessons of 1989: freedom and our future.

• SI SWIMSUIT
• SI SPORTSBOOK

Ex-Cardinals Five-Time Gold Glover Made Available; Should St. Louis Re-Sign?

Nate hagerty | aug 22, 2024.

• St. Louis Cardinals

As the St. Louis Cardinals take on the National League Central-leading Milwaukee Brewers on Thursday afternoon, other news broke out around the league that might interest fans.

Cardinals president of baseball operations John Mozeliak has successfully reeled in former St. Louis players who thrive upon returning to play for the 11-time World Series champions.

With the season narrowing to a close and the Cardinals still five games behind from an NL Wild Card spot, Mozeliak has the opportunity to do it again and reunite with a former St. Louis outfielder who could make an impact .

"Sources: The (Los Angeles) Dodgers have designated Jason Heyward for assignment," Fansided's Robert Murray reported shortly after the Cardinals began the final game of their three-game series against the Brewers Thursday afternoon.

Heyward batted .293 with 50 extra-base hits including 13 home runs, 60 RBIs and a .798 OPS during the 2015 season for the Cardinals.

The 35-year-old is playing in his No. 15 season after bouncing around with multiple organizations throughout his illustrious career, such as the Chicago Cubs, Atlanta Braves, Dodgers, and Cardinals.

However, this season hasn't been so kind to Heyward's career stats after logging a .208/.289/.393 slash line with only six home runs and 28 RBIs in 63 games played for the Dodgers.

Going after Heyward makes sense for the Cardinals if they think there's a chance he'll benefit from the change of scenery. That same strategy has worked for other St. Louis players -- former talent who left the organization and thrived elsewhere.

The Cardinals outfielders have been inconsistent at hitting in 2024 and perhaps adding Heyward to the mix would boost the younger players' production. However, there's no guarantee he'll perform well if reunited with St. Louis, so it wouldn't be surprising if Mozeliak passes the opportunity.

More MLB: Cardinals 'Shouldn't Shy Away' From Utilizing Young Hurler To Boost Rotation

NATE HAGERTY

Nate Hagerty joined “Inside The Cardinals” as a content creator to spread knowledge about his favorite childhood team. A hometown native of Boston, Hagerty chose at an early age of six years old to follow the St. Louis Cardinals. The miraculous season of 04’ for the Red Sox did not deter Hagerty from rooting against his hometown team, nor did it in 2013 against the Red Birds. For all business/marketing inquiries regarding Inside The Cardinals, please reach out to Scott Neville: [email protected]