Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez-Perez

In Gonzalez-Perez, the insured filed a claim under a policy that provides coverage for vandalism to the “residence premises.”  The policy defined “residence premises” as the premises “where you reside and which is shown as the ‘residence premises’ in the Declarations.”  However, the policy did not specifically define “reside.”  The insurer denied coverage because at the time of the loss the insured was not living at the Miami property.  

At trial, the insured testified that he had rented out his Miami home to a third party, but he intended to move back to the home when the lease expired. The jury returned a verdict finding that the loss was not excluded because the insurer did not prove that the property was not the insured’s “residence premises.”  On appeal, the Third District reversed, holding that the trial court should have granted the insurer’s motion for a directed verdict.  The Court concluded that when the term “reside” was given its “plain and ordinary meaning,” it required that the insured reside in the residence at the time of the loss.  Because the plain language controlled, the issue was a question of law and the insured’s intent to move back into the property was irrelevant.  

This opinion emphasizes the importance of moving for summary judgment and/or directed verdict when coverage is denied based on policy language.