As folks age, their dwelling conditions usually change in ways in which have unexpected authorized and monetary penalties. A current Florida appellate determination serves as a lesson not just for householders and their households, but additionally for property planning attorneys, elder regulation practitioners, and actual property attorneys who often advise growing old purchasers. The current 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 dwelling 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 dwelling with Common Property & Casualty for years. After her husband’s dying, Mrs. Pitts transferred title of the property to her revocable dwelling belief, a standard property planning step designed to simplify inheritance and asset administration. Later, when her well being declined, she moved into an assisted dwelling facility and rented out the household dwelling, persevering with to resume her current home-owner’s insurance coverage coverage. Sadly, she by no means notified the insurer that she now not lived there. When she handed away, her successor trustee, her son Dan Pitts, found important water injury to the house and filed a declare with Common.
Common initially made a small fee for emergency remediation work however rapidly denied the rest of the declare after studying that Mrs. Pitts had not lived within the dwelling 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 now 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 drawback. When purchasers transfer into assisted dwelling services or nursing houses, they or their households could proceed to pay premiums on the prevailing householders’ insurance policies, unaware that protection could have successfully lapsed resulting from non-occupancy. Inserting the house in a revocable dwelling belief doesn’t protect protection, nor does the insurer’s continued acceptance of premiums. The courtroom made clear that an insurer’s information 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 really resides within the insured property. In claims involving estates, trusts, or aged householders, occupancy and title should be reviewed fastidiously.
The sensible takeaway is that when a house owner who’s the named insured strikes out briefly or completely of their insured residence, many insurance policies could now not present protection in the identical method as earlier than shifting out. The issue shouldn’t be restricted to simply growing old policyholders; I’ve needed to litigate these points with snowbirds and others who personal a number of houses. Householders who hire out their property or place it in a belief should contact their insurer to substantiate whether or not the prevailing coverage nonetheless applies or if a landlord or vacant property coverage is required as a substitute.
Authorized advisors could have an obligation to lift these questions throughout property or elder planning discussions, particularly as purchasers transition to assisted dwelling. From a sensible standpoint, legal professionals concerned in property planning and counseling purchasers on related issues ought to have a guidelines merchandise that requires the consumer or the lawyer to confirm the insurance coverage implications of such modifications in possession and property utilization.
In “Residence Premises” and Different Killer Exclusions, Half One, I quoted Invoice Wilson and The Massive I presentation on this subject. Their presentation notes that these points generally come up within the following conditions:
- Nursing Houses
- Relocations
- Foreclosures
- Leases
- Baby Occupies Dad and mom’ House
- Mum or dad Occupies Baby’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 as if a routine life adjustment can lead to catastrophic monetary loss if the insurance coverage protection now not suits the home-owner’s actuality. For growing old purchasers and their authorized and insurance coverage advisors, consciousness and proactive communication with insurers can forestall 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).
