As individuals age, their residing conditions typically change in ways in which have unexpected authorized and monetary penalties. A current Florida appellate determination 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 commonly 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 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 dwelling 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 dwelling, persevering with to resume her current house 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 vital water injury 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 dwelling 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 now 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 missed downside. When purchasers transfer into assisted residing services or nursing properties, they or their households could proceed to pay premiums on the prevailing owners’ insurance policies, unaware that protection could have successfully lapsed on account of 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 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 briefly or completely of their insured residence, many insurance policies could now not present protection in the identical method as earlier than transferring out. The issue isn’t restricted to only growing old 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 verify 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 boost these questions throughout property or elder planning discussions, particularly as purchasers transition to assisted residing. From a sensible standpoint, attorneys 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 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’ House
- Father or mother 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 Underneath Building
- Emptiness and/or Unoccupancy
I additionally counsel studying Transfer Out and Lose Protection—Frequent Property Insurance coverage Minefields Prompted By Modifications of Residency.
The Pitts case is a painful lesson that what looks as if a routine life adjustment may end up in catastrophic monetary loss if the insurance coverage protection now not matches the house owner’s actuality. For growing old 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
“Data 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).
