The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment on a collapse claim for the insured, rejecting the insurer’s arguments that were not presented to the trial court. Homeowner’s Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins, Co. v. Oakes, 2026 Fl. App. LEXIS 2086 (Fl. Ct. App. March 18, 2026).

The insured’s ceiling collapsed in the secondary home on the insured’s property. The claim was reported to the insurer, but coverage was denied after its investigation

The insured sued the insurer for breach of contract. Under the Additional Coverage provisions of the policy, collapse was covered if it was “abrupt.” An abrupt collapse was not covered, however, if exclusions for “Fungi, Wet or Dry Rot” and “faulty, inadequate or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, materials or maintenance” applied. The collapse provisions contained no language stating that the coverage granted in the provision was also subject to all the other exclusions in the policy.

The insurer answered and raised several exclusions listed in Section I of the policy, going beyond exclusions in the Additional Coverage for collapse.

The insured moved for partial summary judgment on the insurer’s affirmative defenses, arguing that the policy provided specific “Additional Coverage” for the peril of collapse and that “only those exclusions and/or limitations contained within the additional coverage for collapse would apply.” The insured argued that the insurer’s affirmative defenses based on general exclusions were legally insufficient.

The insured’s motion was referred to a magistrate. At the hearing, the insurer’s counsel argued that the insured had not proven that the collapse was abrupt, or that the collapse rendered the structure not suitable for living, The insurer’s counsel made no argument against the insured’s interpretation of the policy regarding which set of exclusions applied.

The magistrate found that “the only exclusions and/or exceptions to collapse coverage are those explicitly contained within the Additional Coverages for collapse provision of the insurance policy.” The trial court judge agreed. The affirmative defenses raised by the insurer were based on the exclusions within the general coverages of the policy that did not apply under the additional coverages. At trail, the insurer was prohibited from arguing that the general policy exclusions barred coverage for the loss. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the insured.

The insurer appealed, arguing for the first time that the policy’s structure – with general exclusions separately following the collapse coverage and the collapse exclusion – demonstrated that general exclusions applied to all coverages. The appellate court agreed with the insured that the insurer failed to adequately preserve the specific arguments it now advanced on appeal. The insurer’s arguments on appeal were not presented to either the magistrate or trial court judge with sufficient clarity specificity, or legal development.

The court affirmed the final judgment without deciding the issue concerning the proper construction of the policy.