Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently clarified the enforceability of the “residence-premises” requirement in homeowners’ insurance policies. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Boniface Jean, the appellate court reversed a jury verdict in favor of the homeowner, holding that coverage cannot be created by waiver when the insured does not reside at the covered property.
Background
The dispute arose when the homeowner sought coverage for a property loss under a homeowners’ insurance policy. The policy expressly limited coverage to the property where the named insured resided—a common “residence-premises” requirement. During the claim investigation and at trial, the homeowner admitted he had never lived at the subject property, including on the date of the loss. Despite this undisputed fact, the trial court denied the insurer’s motion for directed verdict, allowing the case to proceed to a jury on the theory that the insurer had waived the residency requirement by accepting premiums after learning of the homeowner’s non-residency.
The jury ultimately found that while the homeowner did not reside at the property, the insurer had waived the residency requirement. The insurer appealed.
Appellate Analysis
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed the denial of the directed verdict de novo, emphasizing that coverage provisions define the scope of insurance and cannot be waived. The court cited established Florida precedent: “Waiver cannot create coverage where none exists.” See, e.g., Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Qureshi, 396 So. 3d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).
The appellate court distinguished coverage provisions from forfeiture conditions or post-loss defenses, such as timely notice requirements, which may be subject to waiver. The “residence-premises” clause, however, was deemed a coverage provision. The court explained that if coverage does not exist under the policy from the outset, subsequent actions or inactions by the insurer—including the continued acceptance of premiums—cannot create coverage. Because the residency requirement is integral to the existence of coverage, it cannot be waived. In light of the undisputed evidence that the homeowner did not reside at the subject property, the appellate court found that the insurer was entitled to a directed verdict. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Conclusion
The Fourth DCA’s decision underscores that compliance with the residency requirement is essential for coverage under a homeowners’ insurance policy. Coverage provisions, such as the residence-premises clause, are not subject to waiver regardless of an insurer’s conduct after policy issuance. This ruling provides important guidance for both insurers and policyholders, reinforcing the necessity of adhering to the express terms of insurance contracts.
Source:
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Boniface Jean, — So.3d —-, 2025 WL 3222483 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 19, 2025).