As folks age, their residing conditions typically change in ways in which have unexpected authorized and monetary penalties. A latest Florida appellate choice serves as a lesson not just for owners and their households, but in addition for property planning attorneys, elder regulation practitioners, and actual property attorneys who frequently advise ageing 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 dying, 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 current 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 rapidly 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 coated 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 court docket dominated that the property not met the coverage’s definition of a “residence premises.” The appellate court docket 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 residing amenities 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. Inserting the house in a revocable residing belief doesn’t protect protection, nor does the insurer’s continued acceptance of premiums. The court docket 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 owners, 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 might not present protection in the identical method as earlier than transferring out. The issue isn’t restricted to simply ageing policyholders; I’ve needed to litigate these points with snowbirds and others who personal a number of properties. Owners 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 an alternative.
Authorized advisors might have an obligation to lift 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 related issues ought to have a guidelines merchandise that requires the shopper 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 matter. Their presentation notes that these points generally come up within the following conditions:
- Nursing Properties
- Relocations
- Foreclosures
- Leases
- Little one Occupies Dad and mom’ Residence
- Mother or father Occupies Little one’s Residence
- Divorce
- Sickness or Infirmary of Insured
- Loss of life of Insured
- Trusts
- Properties 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 / Properties Below Building
- Emptiness and/or Unoccupancy
I additionally recommend studying Transfer Out and Lose Protection—Widespread Property Insurance coverage Minefields Induced By Adjustments of Residency.
The Pitts case is a painful lesson that what looks like a routine life adjustment can lead to catastrophic monetary loss if the insurance coverage protection not suits the home-owner’s actuality. For ageing 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).