Earlier this month a unanimous Florida appellate court joined a number of other states that have held that an all-risk policy exclusion for vandalism and malicious mischief operates to bar coverage for an arson loss. The opinion can be found at Botee v. Southern Fid. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 477836, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1566 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App., Feb. 6, 2015).
The insured, Raziya Botee, owned a single-family home that was destroyed by an arsonist on October 10, 2012. It was undisputed that the structure had been vacant for over a month when the fire broke out. Her homeowner’s insurer, Southern Fidelity (SFIC), denied liability because the contract of insurance excluded coverage for losses caused by “vandalism and malicious mischief, theft or attempted theft” if the dwelling had been vacant or unoccupied for more than thirty consecutive days immediately before the loss. Ms. Botee responded by filing a declaratory judgment action against the carrier. The trial granted summary judgment to SFIC, and an appeal followed.
The policyholder argued that the contract of insurance was ambiguous. SFIC’s policy afforded all-risk coverage for loss to the structure under Coverage A and named perils coverage for loss to the contents under Coverage C. The vandalism and malicious mischief exclusion was found only in the former, and the latter expressly recited that both “fire or lightning” and “vandalism or malicious mischief” were covered causes of loss. Though the fire had resulted in no contents loss, Ms. Botee looked to the fact that the policy identified both fire and vandalism as “separate covered perils” without defining either one. According to the insured: Read more ›