An incendiary fire destroyed a home that had been vacant for more than thirty days. The carrier denied the claim under the policy’s vacancy exclusion that excluded damage caused by vandalism and malicious mischief. The policyholder argued that while one could argue that arson constitutes vandalism, since vacancy was not defined by the policy, the exclusion should be considered ambiguous. The 5th District Court of Appeals in Florida disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the plain meaning of vandalism included intentionally set fires. Botee v. Southern Fidelity (Feb. 6, 2015, Fla. 5th Dist.).

Florida Appellate Court Affirms Holding that Arson Constitutes Vandalism
Recent Posts
Categories
Popular Searches
ADA compliance
ADA lawyer
business insurance
Denied Insurance Claims
Disability Discrimination
duty to defend an insured
Florida coastal living
Florida Homeowners Insurance
Florida Property Damage
Florida Property Insurance
home insurance coverage
home inventory tips
homeowner advocacy
homeowners insurance
homeowners insurance claims
Homeowners Insurance Laws
homeowners rights
Hurricane Insurance Coverage
Insurance Claim Assistance
insurance claim denial
insurance claim help
insurance claims
insurance claim tips
insurance dispute attorney
Insurance Disputes
insurance legal experts
insurance market trends
legal defense for homeowners
legal help for homeowners
legal support for homeowners
Mineo Salcedo Law Firm
policyholder protection
policyholder rights
policy interpretation
property damage lawyer
Property Insurance Claims
Property Insurance Disputes
Property Insurance Tips
protect your property
ridesharing insurance coverage
Sinkhole Insurance Florida
The Mineo Salcedo Law Firm
water damage claims
water damage legal help
water damage property claims