As people age, their living situations often change in ways that have unforeseen legal and financial consequences. A recent Florida appellate decision serves as a lesson not only for homeowners and their families, but also for estate planning attorneys, elder law practitioners, and real estate attorneys who regularly advise aging clients. The recent case of Dan Pitts, as Trustee for the Revocable Trust of Evelyn Pitts v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 1 is a textbook example of how a seemingly simple move into assisted living can unravel property insurance coverage, leaving a family with devastating losses and no recourse.
Evelyn Pitts and her husband had insured their Lakeland, Florida home with Universal Property & Casualty for years. After her husband’s death, Mrs. Pitts transferred title of the property to her revocable living trust, a common estate planning step designed to simplify inheritance and asset management. Later, when her health declined, she moved into an assisted living facility and rented out the family home, continuing to renew her existing homeowner’s insurance policy. Unfortunately, she never notified the insurer that she no longer lived there. When she passed away, her successor trustee, her son Dan Pitts, discovered significant water damage to the home and filed a claim with Universal.
Universal initially made a small payment for emergency remediation work but quickly denied the remainder of the claim after learning that Mrs. Pitts had not lived in the home for two years. The insurer argued that the policy covered only the “residence premises,” which was defined as the dwelling where the named insured resides. Because Mrs. Pitts had moved out long before the loss occurred, the court ruled that the property no longer met the policy’s definition of a “residence premises.” The appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, emphasizing that coverage did not exist once the insured stopped residing there.
For attorneys who counsel elderly clients, this case highlights a recurring and often overlooked problem. When clients move into assisted living facilities or nursing homes, they or their families may continue to pay premiums on the existing homeowners’ policies, unaware that coverage may have effectively lapsed due to non-occupancy. Placing the home in a revocable living trust does not preserve coverage, nor does the insurer’s continued acceptance of premiums. The court made clear that an insurer’s knowledge of a trust’s ownership or partial claim payment does not constitute a waiver or create coverage that never existed in the first place.
For public adjusters, the case underscores the importance of verifying who the “named insured” is and whether that person actually resides in the insured property. In claims involving estates, trusts, or elderly homeowners, occupancy and title must be reviewed carefully.
The practical takeaway is that when a homeowner who is the named insured moves out temporarily or permanently of their insured residence, many policies may no longer provide coverage in the same manner as before moving out. The problem is not limited to just aging policyholders; I have had to litigate these issues with snowbirds and others who own multiple homes. Homeowners who rent out their property or place it in a trust must contact their insurer to confirm whether the existing policy still applies or if a landlord or vacant property policy is required instead.
Legal advisors may have a duty to raise these questions during estate or elder planning discussions, especially as clients transition to assisted living. From a practical standpoint, lawyers involved in estate planning and counseling clients on similar matters should have a checklist item that requires the client or the lawyer to verify the insurance implications of such changes in ownership and property usage.
In “Residence Premises” and Other Killer Exclusions, Part One, I quoted Bill Wilson and The Big I presentation on this topic. Their presentation notes that these issues commonly arise in the following situations:
- Nursing Homes
- Relocations
- Foreclosures
- Rentals
- Child Occupies Parents’ Home
- Parent Occupies Child’s Home
- Divorce
- Illness or Infirmary of Insured
- Death of Insured
- Trusts
- Homes Owned by LLCs and Corporations
- Seller Remains After Closing
- Seller Moves Out Before Closing
- Buyer Moves In or Takes Possession Before Closing
- Renovations / Homes Under Construction
- Vacancy and/or Unoccupancy
I also suggest reading Move Out and Lose Coverage—Common Property Insurance Minefields Caused By Changes of Residency.
The Pitts case is a painful lesson that what seems like a routine life adjustment can result in catastrophic financial loss if the insurance coverage no longer fits the homeowner’s reality. For aging clients and their legal and insurance advisors, awareness and proactive communication with insurers can prevent tragedy before it strikes.
Thought For The Day
“Knowledge is power.”
—Francis Bacon
1 Dan Pitts, as Trustee for Revocable Trust of Evelyn Pitts v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 6D2024-0575, 2025 WL 638208 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 3, 2025).