INSURANCE: HOMEOWNERS’ INSURANCE: SINKHOLE: MISREPRESENTATION: CIVIL PROCEDURE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT: NEGATIVE RESPONSE TO QUESTION IN INSURANCE APPLICATION ABOUT CRACKING DAMAGE DID NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY ESTABLISH MISREPRESENTATION BECAUSE QUESTION CONNOTED SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS THAN COMMON DRYWALL CRACKING: CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERWRITER DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY CORRECT ANSWER TO QUESTION WOULD HAVE DETERRED INSURER FROM ISSUING POLICY

Mora v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company, ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D262 (Fla. 2d DCA January 23, 2015)

The appellate court reversed summary judgment rescinding a homeowner’s insurance policy based upon material misrepresentation in the insurance application. The insureds answered that their home did not have cracking damage, although the builder’s homeowner orientation report reflected the existence of cracking in the living, dining, family, and home theater rooms. This discrepancy did not unequivocally establish that the insureds misrepresented the condition of the property because the reference to “cracking damage” in the insurance application connoted the existence of a condition more serious than common household cracking. In addition, the underwriter’s conclusory affidavit did not explain why a correct answer to the question would have deterred the insurer from issuing the policy.

To read more briefs in the Insurance: Homeowner’s Insurance category of the Kashi Law Letter, please click here, http://www.kashilawletter.com/category/insurance/homeowners-insurance/.

To read more briefs in the Civil Procedure: Judgment category of the Kashi Law Letter, please click here, http://www.kashilawletter.com/category/civil-procedure/judgment/.