As folks age, their residing conditions usually change in ways in which have unexpected authorized and monetary penalties. A latest Florida appellate determination serves as a lesson not just for owners and their households, but additionally for property planning attorneys, elder regulation practitioners, and actual property attorneys who repeatedly advise getting older purchasers. The latest case of Dan Pitts, as Trustee for the Revocable Belief of Evelyn Pitts v. Common Property & Casualty Insurance coverage Firm, 1 is a textbook instance of how a seemingly easy transfer into assisted residing can unravel property insurance coverage protection, leaving a household with devastating losses and no recourse.
Evelyn Pitts and her husband had insured their Lakeland, Florida house with Common Property & Casualty for years. After her husband’s loss of life, Mrs. Pitts transferred title of the property to her revocable residing belief, a typical property planning step designed to simplify inheritance and asset administration. Later, when her well being declined, she moved into an assisted residing facility and rented out the household house, persevering with to resume her present home-owner’s insurance coverage coverage. Sadly, she by no means notified the insurer that she not lived there. When she handed away, her successor trustee, her son Dan Pitts, found important water harm to the house and filed a declare with Common.
Common initially made a small fee for emergency remediation work however shortly denied the rest of the declare after studying that Mrs. Pitts had not lived within the house for 2 years. The insurer argued that the coverage lined solely the “residence premises,” which was outlined because the dwelling the place the named insured resides. As a result of Mrs. Pitts had moved out lengthy earlier than the loss occurred, the courtroom dominated that the property not met the coverage’s definition of a “residence premises.” The appellate courtroom affirmed abstract judgment in favor of the insurer, emphasizing that protection didn’t exist as soon as the insured stopped residing there.
For attorneys who counsel aged purchasers, this case highlights a recurring and infrequently ignored downside. When purchasers transfer into assisted residing services or nursing properties, they or their households might proceed to pay premiums on the present owners’ insurance policies, unaware that protection might have successfully lapsed attributable to non-occupancy. Putting the house in a revocable residing belief doesn’t protect protection, nor does the insurer’s continued acceptance of premiums. The courtroom made clear that an insurer’s data of a belief’s possession or partial declare fee doesn’t represent a waiver or create protection that by no means existed within the first place.
For public adjusters, the case underscores the significance of verifying who the “named insured” is and whether or not that individual truly resides within the insured property. In claims involving estates, trusts, or aged owners, occupancy and title have to be reviewed fastidiously.
The sensible takeaway is that when a house owner who’s the named insured strikes out quickly or completely of their insured residence, many insurance policies might not present protection in the identical method as earlier than shifting out. The issue will not be restricted to simply getting older policyholders; I’ve needed to litigate these points with snowbirds and others who personal a number of properties. Householders who lease out their property or place it in a belief should contact their insurer to substantiate whether or not the present coverage nonetheless applies or if a landlord or vacant property coverage is required as a substitute.
Authorized advisors might have an obligation to boost these questions throughout property or elder planning discussions, particularly as purchasers transition to assisted residing. From a sensible standpoint, legal professionals concerned in property planning and counseling purchasers on comparable issues ought to have a guidelines merchandise that requires the shopper or the lawyer to confirm the insurance coverage implications of such adjustments in possession and property utilization.
In “Residence Premises” and Different Killer Exclusions, Half One, I quoted Invoice Wilson and The Huge I presentation on this matter. Their presentation notes that these points generally come up within the following conditions:
- Nursing Houses
- Relocations
- Foreclosures
- Leases
- Youngster Occupies Mother and father’ House
- Father or mother Occupies Youngster’s House
- Divorce
- Sickness or Infirmary of Insured
- Demise of Insured
- Trusts
- Houses Owned by LLCs and Companies
- Vendor Stays After Closing
- Vendor Strikes Out Earlier than Closing
- Purchaser Strikes In or Takes Possession Earlier than Closing
- Renovations / Houses Underneath Development
- Emptiness and/or Unoccupancy
I additionally counsel studying Transfer Out and Lose Protection—Widespread Property Insurance coverage Minefields Brought about By Adjustments of Residency.
The Pitts case is a painful lesson that what looks like a routine life adjustment may end up in catastrophic monetary loss if the insurance coverage protection not matches the home-owner’s actuality. For getting older purchasers and their authorized and insurance coverage advisors, consciousness and proactive communication with insurers can stop tragedy earlier than it strikes.
Thought For The Day
“Information is energy.”
—Francis Bacon
1 Dan Pitts, as Trustee for Revocable Belief of Evelyn Pitts v. Common Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 6D2024-0575, 2025 WL 638208 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 3, 2025).
