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
accessibility law
ADA compliance
ADA lawyer
ADA lawyers
ADA legal support
ADA violation risks
ADA violations
business loss recovery
commercial insurance claims
compliance audits
Denied Insurance Claims
Disability Discrimination
Florida Homeowners Insurance
Florida Property Damage
Florida property improvements
Florida Property Insurance
high-value home coverage
home insurance coverage
homeowners insurance
Homeowners Insurance Laws
homeowners legal support
Hurricane Insurance Coverage
Insurance Claim Assistance
insurance claim denial
insurance claim help
insurance claim preparation
insurance claim tips
insurance dispute attorney
Insurance Disputes
insurance policy coverage
insurance policy review
legal help for homeowners
Legal Representation
Mineo Salcedo Law Firm
policyholder rights
Property Insurance Claims
Property Insurance Disputes
Property Insurance Tips
property owner liability
protect your property
roof replacement financing
Sinkhole Insurance Florida
The Mineo Salcedo Law Firm
water damage claims
workplace discrimination