A Florida appellate court has breathed new life into a long-running dispute over a fire insurance claim, handing insurers a partial win in a case that could clarify how far a policy’s fraud clause can reach—especially when multiple people are covered under the same plan.
On June 13, 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a $500,000 judgment awarded to homeowner Lauren Mauger, finding that the trial court didn’t properly weigh a key clause in the property insurance policy issued by the now-insolvent Avatar Property and Casualty Insurance Company.
The case stems from a 2019 fire that started in Mauger’s garage while her husband, Donald Slayman, was home. Slayman—who was then a lieutenant with the Brevard County Fire Department—initially said he didn’t know what caused the fire. But months later, during a formal statement, he admitted he had accidentally started it by pouring gasoline into a running generator after drinking. He also admitted that he hadn’t been truthful at the outset, citing embarrassment and concern about how the insurer would react.
That admission proved pivotal. Avatar denied the couple’s claim, pointing to the policy’s “Concealment or Fraud” clause. The clause states that coverage is void if “one or more insureds” intentionally conceal or misrepresent any material fact. Both Mauger and Slayman were named insureds on the policy.
Mauger later sued, arguing she had no role in the fire and didn’t know what had happened until her husband told her months later. A trial court agreed, calling her an innocent co-insured and granting her summary judgment. After Avatar went into liquidation, the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) stepped in and took the case to appeal.
The appeals court found that the trial judge failed to account for the specific policy language. Since the clause referenced “one or more insureds,” the court said it was clear that misconduct by just one insured could be enough to void the entire claim—regardless of the other party’s involvement or knowledge.
The court sent the case back to trial, emphasizing that a jury should decide whether Slayman’s initial statements to investigators amounted to intentional concealment under the terms of the policy. The ruling doesn’t mean Mauger loses her claim, but it does mean FIGA gets another chance to contest it.
This decision offers a reminder for insurers and claims professionals: policy language matters. In particular, clauses that assign consequences to “any” or “one or more” insureds can play a significant role in how coverage disputes are resolved—especially when they involve misrepresentations or delayed disclosures.
While the ruling was narrow, it’s a clear signal that courts may be willing to enforce strict policy terms when fraud or concealment is at play, even when only one of the insured parties is responsible. That’s something insurers should keep in mind when drafting or reviewing homeowner policy language.
