ABRAMS v. CONSTITUTION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (2019)

Dina Abrams (“Abrams”), as next best friend of Doris Bechhof, appeals from an adverse summary judgment. We affirm.

Abrams, daughter of Ms. Bechhof, sued Constitution Life Insurance Company (“Constitution”), for denying benefits pursuant to a “Home Health Care Limited Benefit Policy” purchased by Ms. Bechhof. When Ms. Bechhof entered an assisted living facility, Constitution denied the claims for payment of benefits because the policy only covers home health care services and specifically excludes services rendered by a nursing home, nursing care facility, hospice facility, hospital, or assisted living facility. The lower court granted summary judgment in Constitution's favor.

We review this matter de novo. See Kurtz v. AF & L Ins. Co., 211 So. 3d 1115, 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing to Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So. 3d 1000, 1005 (Fla. 2010) (confirming that “a question of insurance policy interpretation, which is a question of law, [is] subject to de novo review.

Abrams characterizes the policy as a “long term health care coverage policy” but it clearly is not. It is a policy that covers home health care services, those services to be rendered in the policyholder's home. “Home” is defined in the policy as follows: “HOME is considered to be Your home where You reside. Home is not a Nursing Care Facility, Hospice Facility, Assisted Living Facility, or a Hospital.” (emphasis added). To be sure, the policy clearly notifies the purchaser that “[t]his policy is a LIMITED BENEFIT POLICY and NOT a Long Term Care Insurance as defined by Florida Law.” Abrams argues that the policy language is ambiguous. It is not. The trial court correctly concluded there was no ambiguity in the policy provisions, as the policy expressly does not cover assisted living facility services. See Pol v. Pol, 705 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“It is well established that a court cannot rewrite the clear and unambiguous terms of a voluntary contract.”).

Affirmed.

HENDON, J.