Jurisdiction: Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 6D2024-0575
Lower Tribunal Case No.: 2020CA-003048-0000-00 (Polk County)
Date: October 3, 2025
Lower Court: Circuit Court for Polk County, Hon. Jennifer A. Swenson
Panel: Nardella, J.; Traver, C.J.; Wozniak, J. (concur)
Counsel: Matthew Struble for Appellant; David A. Noel and Kara Rockenbach Link for Appellee Universal; No appearance for DriRite USA, Inc.
Overview
In this first‐party property case arising from a water leak at a Lakeland home, the Sixth DCA affirmed final summary judgment for Universal. The dispositive issue was the policy’s “residence premises” requirement: coverage applied only if the named insured resided at the address listed. It was undisputed that the named insured, Evelyn Pitts, had not lived there for years—she had moved to assisted living and rented the home to tenants. Because residency never existed during the policy period, there was no coverage under the insuring agreement. The court also rejected the trustee’s arguments that Universal waived its right to deny coverage by accepting premiums, listing a revocable trust as an additional interest, or making an initial payment before learning of the residency issue.
Background & Procedural Posture
- Evelyn and Logan Pitts insured their Lakeland home with Universal about fifteen years earlier.
- After Mr. Pitts died, Mrs. Pitts deeded the property to her revocable living trust (added to the policy as an additional interest).
- Mrs. Pitts later moved to assisted living and rented the property to tenants; she continued renewing the same policy and never informed Universal of the change in occupancy.
- After Mrs. Pitts passed away, successor trustee Dan Pitts reported water damage. Universal promptly sent mitigation vendors and initially paid amounts owed for work performed before it learned of the non-residency.
- Upon learning Mrs. Pitts had not resided at the property for nearly two years before her death, Universal denied the remainder of the claim based on lack of coverage.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Universal, and the Sixth DCA affirmed.
Issues Presented
- Ambiguity: Was the policy facially ambiguous because the Declarations listed the address as “insured location” rather than explicitly calling it the “residence premises”?
- Waiver/Estoppel: Did Universal waive its right to deny coverage (a) by accepting premiums while the property was titled to a revocable living trust and/or (b) by making an initial payment after the loss?
Holding
- No ambiguity. Reading the Declarations and the policy as a whole, the address listed as the “insured location” is encompassed by the policy definition of “insured location,” which in turn includes the “residence premises.” The separate definition of “residence premises” requires that the named insured reside at the property. Because Mrs. Pitts did not reside at the home during the policy period, the house ceased to qualify as the residence premises.
- No waiver. (a) Knowledge that the property was titled to a revocable living trust indicates a change in title, not in residency. (b) Initial payment did not extend or create coverage, because the “residence premises” requirement is an insuring-agreement coverage condition, not a mere post-loss forfeiture provision susceptible to waiver.
Court’s Reasoning (Plain-English)
1) Ambiguity Argument Fails
Florida law requires courts to read every provision together and give each its full effect. The Declarations page listed the property’s address as the insured location. The policy then defined insured location to include the residence premises—and residence premises was separately defined to mean the place where the named insured resides. Put simply: address + your residency = coverage. Once Mrs. Pitts moved out and tenants moved in, that equation failed. With no residency, there was no dwelling coverage for this loss.
2) Waiver/Estoppel Do Not Create Coverage
Florida draws a firm line between:
- Coverage provisions (what risks the insurer agreed to cover in the first place), and
- Forfeiture provisions (post-loss duties like notice, proofs of loss, etc.).
Insurers can waive forfeiture defenses, but they cannot be forced—by waiver or estoppel—to provide coverage they never assumed. Here, the residence-premises requirement lives in the insuring agreement (i.e., the grant of coverage). Because Universal never assumed the risk of a non-resident claim, its acceptance of premiums, the listing of the revocable trust as an interest, and an initial payment (before learning of non-residency) did not expand coverage. There was also no evidence Universal knowingly accepted premiums despite a known lack of residency or that the insureds detrimentally relied on any such conduct.
Why This Case Matters (Practical Takeaways)
- Owner-occupied vs. tenant-occupied: Standard HO policies are designed for owner-occupied risks. If you move out, place the home with tenants, or otherwise change occupancy, you may need a different policy form (e.g., DP-3/landlord).
- Tell your insurer—now, not later: A change of residency or occupancy is material. Notify the carrier and your agent so the policy can be rewritten or endorsements added.
- “Insured location” ≠ automatic coverage: The address appearing on the Declarations does not guarantee coverage unless the policy’s definitions and conditions (including residency) are met.
- Early payments ≠ coverage concession: Emergency/mitigation payments made before an insurer learns critical facts do not create coverage where none exists under the policy’s grant.
- Trust ownership is not residency: Titling a home in a revocable trust is estate planning—not proof that the named insured resides there.
For Florida Homeowners & Claimants
- Brush up on the basics of the claim process so you know what to expect from first notice through adjustment:
- Be aware of how carriers may position coverage defenses and what tactics to anticipate:
- Keep current on Florida’s statutory framework and common policy conditions that often matter in these disputes:
Key Citations (Referenced by the Court)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2000) — read the policy as a whole.
- Washington Nat’l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2013) — resolve true ambiguities in favor of coverage.
- Doe v. Allstate Ins. Co., 653 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1995) — waiver/estoppel cannot create coverage where none exists.
- Lloyds Underwriters at London v. Keystone Equip. Fin. Corp., 25 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) — distinction between coverage provisions and forfeiture provisions.
- Arguelles v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 278 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) — no waiver of residence-premises requirement learned post-loss.
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stand-Up MRI of Miami, Inc., 327 So. 3d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) — prior payments do not extend coverage by waiver.
Bottom Line
The Sixth DCA’s opinion is a clear reminder: the “residence premises” condition is part of the grant of coverage. If the named insured doesn’t live there, there’s no dwelling coverage for the loss—no matter what the Declarations say, who pays the premiums, how the title is held, or whether the insurer made early payments before it knew the facts. For homeowners who relocate or rent out their properties, the right policy form (and timely communication with the carrier) is everything.
Today’s Insight
“The wisdom of life consists in the elimination of non-essentials.”
— Lin Yutang
In insurance, the “essential” is the policy’s grant of coverage. If residency is required, nothing else substitutes for it.