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. About The Author
Most homeowners’ policies – and property insurance policies in general – contain a limited coverage extension for “collapse.” The interpretation of that collapse coverage has been litigated around the country for decades, with different jurisdictions reaching considerably different results. The latest of these decisions, Valls v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 17-3495-cv (2d Cir. 2019), comes out of the Second Circuit, deciding the case under Connecticut law. The case presented a single substantive question: does the “collapse” provision afford coverage for basement walls which had significant cracking but remain standing? Both the district court (D. Conn.) and the Second Circuit Court of Appeal concluded that it does not. In Valls, the plaintiffs owned a home in Connecticut which was insured by…
