A Florida appeals court has revived a million-dollar fight over whether an insurance broker failed to secure key coverage for an RV park’s power stations.
On July 30, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment in favor of Leavitt Recreation & Hospitality Insurance, Inc., sending the case back for further proceedings. The dispute centers on Florida Caverns R.V. Resort, LLC, a privately owned RV park near Marianna, Florida, and its efforts to recover damages after Hurricane Michael struck in October 2018.
Florida Caverns bought the RV park out of bankruptcy in September 2018. Its owner, Erwin Jackson, contacted Leavitt Recreation, a broker specializing in insurance for RV parks and related businesses, to arrange commercial property insurance. Jackson testified that he provided Leavitt with detailed information about the park’s operations, including a map showing all sites with utility hook-ups - electricity, water, sewer, internet, and cable. He said he asked for whatever coverage would be adequate to protect against damage and loss to the business premises, not just lost income. Jackson denied that he would have rejected additional coverage for a higher premium, insisting he simply wanted adequate protection.
Leavitt’s agent did not visit the property, instead relying on Google Maps and other electronic views. The agent admitted that it was his job to collect detailed information for underwriters and to inform clients of available coverages. He acknowledged that Leavitt could offer coverage for power station damage and that such coverage would be scheduled separately within the policy if provided. The agent initially said he did not discuss this coverage with Jackson, but later claimed they “went through” multiple coverages, including power stations, by phone, and that Jackson elected not to obtain the coverage. Jackson, however, denied ever rejecting it.
The policy, titled “RV Park and Campground Application,” was issued with an effective date of October 5, 2018. It did not expressly specify whether power stations were included or excluded. The list of available but not-included coverages did not mention power stations. After Hurricane Michael passed directly over the park on October 10, 2018, causing extensive damage, Leavitt’s agent emailed Jackson that the policy “may not have included insurance coverage for the premises utility pedestals.” When Florida Caverns filed a claim, the insurer denied coverage for damage to the RV power stations, stating that no such coverage had been included.
Florida Caverns sued, alleging it had requested comprehensive coverage that should have included the power stations, and that it was customary in the industry to provide such coverage for RV parks. The complaint stated that, if the policy excluded power-station coverage, Leavitt had negligently failed to include it. The park spent $496,703 to repair 91 RV power stations, $494,746 to rebuild 83 others, and $106,067 to repair or replace 27 at tent sites - totaling $1,097,516.40 for 201 power stations alone.
Leavitt answered with twenty-six affirmative defenses, admitting that power-station coverage was available but arguing that Florida Caverns was responsible for identifying any inadequacies in the policy and bringing them to Leavitt’s attention. Leavitt also claimed that Jackson had declined the coverage to save on premiums.
The trial court sided with Leavitt, ruling that Florida Caverns was required to produce an actual insurance policy issued before Hurricane Michael that covered RV power-station damage. The appellate court disagreed, noting that both Jackson and the Leavitt agent testified that such coverage was available at the relevant time and was discussed. The court found that producing an actual policy covering power stations was unnecessary and that an agent’s failure to inform a client that requested coverage was missing could be actionable.
The decision is not final until any timely and authorized motions are resolved. For insurance professionals, this case is a sharp reminder: when it comes to specialized commercial coverage, clarity and documentation are everything. Misunderstandings over what’s covered can lead to costly litigation—and, as this case shows, the courts may not always side with the broker.
