Florida’s Fourth District Court docket of Attraction lately clarified the enforceability of the “residence-premises” requirement in owners’ insurance coverage insurance policies. In Common Property & Casualty Insurance coverage Firm v. Boniface Jean, the appellate courtroom reversed a jury verdict in favor of the house owner, holding that protection can’t be created by waiver when the insured doesn’t reside on the coated property.
Background
The dispute arose when the house owner sought protection for a property loss underneath a owners’ insurance coverage coverage. The coverage expressly restricted protection to the property the place the named insured resided—a typical “residence-premises” requirement. Throughout the declare investigation and at trial, the house owner admitted he had by no means lived on the topic property, together with on the date of the loss. Regardless of this undisputed truth, the trial courtroom denied the insurer’s movement for directed verdict, permitting the case to proceed to a jury on the idea that the insurer had waived the residency requirement by accepting premiums after studying of the house owner’s non-residency.
The jury finally discovered that whereas the house owner didn’t reside on the property, the insurer had waived the residency requirement. The insurer appealed.
Appellate Evaluation
The Fourth District Court docket of Attraction reviewed the denial of the directed verdict de novo, emphasizing that protection provisions outline the scope of insurance coverage and can’t be waived. The courtroom cited established Florida precedent: “Waiver can’t create protection the place none exists.” See, e.g., Common Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Qureshi, 396 So. 3d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).
The appellate courtroom distinguished protection provisions from forfeiture situations or post-loss defenses, reminiscent of well timed discover necessities, which can be topic to waiver. The “residence-premises” clause, nonetheless, was deemed a protection provision. The courtroom defined that if protection doesn’t exist underneath the coverage from the outset, subsequent actions or inactions by the insurer—together with the continued acceptance of premiums—can’t create protection. As a result of the residency requirement is integral to the existence of protection, it can’t be waived. In mild of the undisputed proof that the house owner didn’t reside on the topic property, the appellate courtroom discovered that the insurer was entitled to a directed verdict. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Conclusion
The Fourth DCA’s determination underscores that compliance with the residency requirement is important for protection underneath a owners’ insurance coverage coverage. Protection provisions, such because the residence-premises clause, should not topic to waiver no matter an insurer’s conduct after coverage issuance. This ruling offers essential steering for each insurers and policyholders, reinforcing the need of adhering to the categorical phrases of insurance coverage contracts.
Supply:
Common Property & Casualty Insurance coverage Firm v. Boniface Jean, — So.3d —-, 2025 WL 3222483 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 19, 2025).
About The Writer
