Citizens Property Insurance Mobile Home Additional Structures ‘Buy-Back’ Proposed

Mar 6, 2013


Mobile home screened enclosures and carports that are attached would once again be eligible for insurance coverage under a proposal recommended by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation’s Actuarial and Underwriting Committee at its meeting yesterday, March 5, 2013. 

Although Committee members’ 3-2 vote reflected their skepticism about Citizens offering insurance for such structures once again, the recommendation was approved nevertheless and forwarded for Citizens’ Board of Governors’ consideration.   Citizens had eliminated coverage for screened enclosures and carports for mobile homes last year, citing their high risk.

Yesterday’s proposal includes a 16 percent surcharge for coverage for carports and screened enclosures.

During the meeting, John Rollins, who has consistently voiced opposition to insuring such structures, did so again, calling it a “public policy issue” larger than Citizens is able to address.

“I don’t support extending coverage to structures that cannot be maintained worthy.  To me, it’s a public safety issue.  Carports and related structures turn into missiles under hurricane force winds,” he said.

Under the proposal, a “buy-back” endorsement would include:

  • Coverage for screened enclosures and carports attached to mobile homes
  • Offers per $100 of coverage up to a limit of $10,000
  • Actual Cash Value coverage
  • Application of the policy deductible

Premiums would be adjusted to reflect the vulnerability of the structures, it was explained.

Structures with aluminum frames, awnings, screens or thatched roofs such as those on tiki huts would remain excluded.

At its December 2012 meeting, the Board considered a request from representatives of the mobile home community to provide coverage for screened enclosures and carports.  This request was based on market feedback that the removal of these coverages earlier in 2012 created challenges for some mobile home policyholders for the following reasons:

  • Adjustments to Coverage A to address removal of the coverage for these structures exacerbates existing challenges meeting mortgage requirements;
  • Some mobile home community prospectuses require that residents obtain insurance for these structures. Mobile home representatives have argued that Citizens has a legal obligation to insure these structures if coverage is required in the prospectus, however, Citizens legal staff has stated that the State-run insurer does not have a legal obligation to offer this coverage.
  • Inability to obtain insurance for these structures leaves policyholder with unacceptable financial risk

To view the complete proposal, click here.


Should you have any questions or comments, please contact Colodny Fass& Webb.



Click here to follow Colodny Fass& Webb on Twitter (@CFTLAWcom)



To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please send an email to Brooke Ellis at