As folks age, their residing conditions typically change in ways in which have unexpected authorized and monetary penalties. A current Florida appellate choice 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 recurrently advise growing older shoppers. 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 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 current house 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 injury to the house and filed a declare with Common.
Common initially made a small cost 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 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 shoppers, this case highlights a recurring and infrequently missed drawback. When shoppers transfer into assisted residing amenities or nursing properties, they or their households might proceed to pay premiums on the prevailing 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 court docket made clear that an insurer’s data of a belief’s possession or partial declare cost 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 have to be reviewed fastidiously.
The sensible takeaway is that when a home-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 is just not restricted to only growing older policyholders; I’ve needed to litigate these points with snowbirds and others who personal a number of properties. Owners who hire out their property or place it in a belief should contact their insurer to verify whether or not the prevailing 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 shoppers transition to assisted residing. From a sensible standpoint, legal professionals concerned in property planning and counseling shoppers on related issues ought to have a guidelines merchandise that requires the consumer 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 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 Mother and father’ House
- Dad or mum Occupies Little one’s House
- Divorce
- Sickness or Infirmary of Insured
- Demise 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 Beneath Building
- Emptiness and/or Unoccupancy
I additionally counsel 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 may end up in catastrophic monetary loss if the insurance coverage protection not matches the house owner’s actuality. For growing older shoppers 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).