Mr. Arguelles arranged for a plumber and water mitigation company to effect repairs. He also contacted Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, from which he had acquired a homeowners' insurance policy, to report the loss.

Citizens conducted a post-loss investigation and learned that Mr. Arguelles no longer resided in the condo, and it denied coverage.

Mr. Arguelles sued Citizens. The insurer moved for summary judgment, contending that its policy's residency requirement precluded coverage. Mr. Arguelles argued that he was entitled to coverage for his loss because the policy covered property that was “your insurance responsibility under a corporation or association of property owner[']s agreement.”

The trial court granted summary judgment to Citizens, and Mr. Arguelles appealed. He argued that the policy language did not require that he actually reside in the condo to be covered for the loss.

The Citizens Policy

The Citizens policy provided:

We cover:

1. The alterations, appliances, fixtures and improvements which are part of the building contained within the “residence premises”;

2. Items of real property which pertain exclusively to the “residence premises”;

3. Property which is your insurance responsibility under a corporation or association of property owners agreement; . . . .

The policy defined “residence premises” as the:

unit where you reside shown as the “Location of Residence Premises” in the Declarations

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed, finding that the policy language was “clear and unambiguous.”

The court ruled that the policy extended dwelling coverage to the “residence premises,” unequivocally defined within the policy as the “unit where you reside.”

The appellate court acknowledged that the term “reside” was undefined in the policy, but said that it had two definitions: “[t]o live in a place permanently or for an extended period of time.” It then declared that because Mr. Arguelles was living in New York at the time of the loss, and his Miami condominium was solely occupied by his two tenants, he was not entitled to coverage under either definition.

Accordingly, it concluded, the trial court had properly granted final summary judgment to Citizens.

The case is Arguelles v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., No. 3D17-2021 (Fla. Ct. App. July 3, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellant/cross-appellee. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and David C. Borucke (Tampa), for appellee/cross-appellant.