Botee v. Southern Fidelity Insurance Co.
162 So. 3d 183
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Botee owned a single-family home insured by Southern Fidelity Insurance Company under a policy providing all-risk structural coverage (Coverage A) subject to exclusions and named-perils personal property coverage (Coverage C).
- The home was vacant for more than 30 consecutive days when an intentionally set fire (arson) destroyed the structure on October 10, 2012.
- SFIC denied the claim, relying on a vacancy exclusion in Coverage A that bars losses caused by "vandalism and malicious mischief" if the dwelling was vacant >30 days.
- Botee sued for declaratory relief, arguing the vacancy exclusion applies only to "vandalism and malicious mischief" and not to "fire," and thus the arson loss should be covered; she moved for summary judgment but the trial court denied it.
- The trial court (and this appeal) turned on whether the terms "vandalism and malicious mischief" unambiguously encompass arson for purposes of excluding Coverage A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arson falls within the Policy's vacancy exclusion phrased as "vandalism and malicious mischief" | Botee: vacancy exclusion is limited to vandalism/mischief, not "fire"; because the policy separately lists "fire" under Coverage C, exclusion is ambiguous and must be construed for coverage | SFIC: ordinary meaning of "vandalism and malicious mischief" includes arson; exclusion is unambiguous and bars coverage for a vacant dwelling destroyed by intentionally set fire | Court: Vacancy exclusion is unambiguous; plain and ordinary meanings of "vandalism" and "malicious mischief" include arson, so exclusion applies and SFIC properly denied coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Battishill v. Farmers Alliance Ins. Co., 127 P.3d 1111 (N.M. 2006) (held arson is a form of vandalism/malicious mischief in similar all-risk/named-perils policy context)
- Am. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Durrence, 872 F.2d 378 (11th Cir. 1989) (common-sense interpretation of "vandalism" exclusion includes arson)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1998) (absence of a definition in a policy does not, by itself, create ambiguity)
- Fayad v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 2005) (ambiguities in exclusions are construed in favor of the insured, but only when genuine ambiguity remains after applying ordinary rules of construction)