Aspen Insurance UK, LTD (Aspen) provided insurance that covered both business real and business personal property owned by Grover Commercial Enterprises, Inc. (Grover). The property and contents were leased by Grover to Carma, LLC (Carma), which operated a restaurant at the location. Under the lease arrangement, Carma, during the lease’s term, was held to be in full possession of all of the leased property.

Later, during the lease term, Carma left the property. After it vacated the location, Grover filed a loss, asking for coverage caused by Carma’s theft of business personal property and for damage to the building caused by the business personal property’s removal. Aspen denied the claim. The denial was based upon the Aspen policy’s “Entrustment Exclusion” that barred coverage for loss or damage due to dishonest or criminal acts on the part of the insured (Grover) or any party to which the insured entrusts property. Grover sued. After a lower court ruled in favor of Aspen, Grover appealed.

Grover argued that the lower court ruling was in error. Grover believed that the entrustment exclusion was ambiguous as their tenant, Carma, was not specified and that leasing property is distinct from entrustment. The higher court reviewed the matter. It found that, as a matter of course, leasing property to another party is a manner of entrustment and the exclusion was applicable. The lower court ruling in favor of Aspen was affirmed.

“Grover Commercial Enterprises, Inc. v. Aspen Insurance UK, LTD., et al., Appellees. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. No. 3D14-1987. Filed September 7, 2016. Affirmed. Westlaw 202 So. 3d877