Florida Boat Owner Sues Marine Insurers Seeking Coverage for Stolen Vessel in Southern District of Florida Admiralty Action
A complex maritime insurance dispute has unfolded in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida as a group of domestic surplus lines insurers and certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London have filed a federal complaint against a Florida resident and his loss payee. The legal action, filed under Case No. 0:26-cv-61519-MD, centers on an insurance coverage dispute following the alleged theft of a luxury pleasure craft. The insurers are asking the federal court to declare the marine insurance policy null and void from inception, which would completely eliminate coverage for the boat owner’s substantial financial losses.
Marine Insurers File Declaratory Judgment Lawsuit Over Theft of Maxum Vessel in Miami Lakes Florida
The litigation stems from an incident involving a 2001 42-foot Maxum vessel owned by Florida resident Luis Reynaldo Camejo. According to court documents, the boat was allegedly stolen on or about February 12, 2026, and suffered extensive physical damage while in the possession of the thieves before it was ultimately recovered by authorities a few days later. Following the recovery, the vessel owner submitted a property damage claim under his marine insurance policy, which provided over one hundred thousand dollars in hull coverage. However, a group of plaintiffs including Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company, Hadron Specialty Insurance Company, Spinnaker Specialty Insurance Company, Texas Insurance Company, Palomar Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, and certain syndicates at Lloyd’s of London denied the claim and initiated a federal lawsuit instead.
Insurance Companies Allege Breach of Fire Extinguishing Equipment Warranty in Marine Insurance Policy Dispute
In the five-count federal complaint, the marine insurance companies argue that the policy is completely void because the vessel owner failed to maintain strict compliance with specific maritime warranties. The first major allegation involves an express fire extinguishing equipment warranty contained within the policy terms. Under New York law, which the plaintiffs assert governs the policy in the absence of entrenched federal maritime law, warranties in marine contracts are strictly enforced regardless of whether a breach is causally related to the underlying loss. The insurers claim that a post-loss inspection of the vessel revealed that the gauge for the onboard fixed fire extinguisher was resting in the red zone, indicating it was completely uncharged. Furthermore, the insurance companies allege the system had not been inspected, tagged, or certified by a licensed professional within the year prior to the theft, constitutes a fatal breach of contract.
Complaint Details Outstanding Safety Deficiencies and Uncompleted Recommendations from Condition and Valuation Survey
The maritime lawsuit further alleges that the boat owner breached a strict survey compliance warranty. When applying for the marine insurance policy, the owner submitted a condition and valuation survey that outlined several critical safety deficiencies, including single-clamped auxiliary engine exhaust hoses, expired portable fire extinguishers, and uncertified engine room fire suppression systems. Although the policyholder provided a written letter of compliance asserting that all issues had been resolved, the insurers note that their post-loss investigation revealed multiple safety recommendations were never actually completed. Because these hazardous conditions allegedly remained outstanding at the time of the vessel’s theft, the insurance providers maintain that the entire insuring agreement became null and void from its very inception.
Boat Owner Accused of Concealing Prior Criminal Convictions for Cocaine Trafficking and Money Laundering
Beyond physical equipment violations, the federal complaint levies serious allegations of misrepresentation and fraud against the policyholder under the historic maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei, or utmost good faith. This long-standing legal principle requires an applicant for marine insurance to voluntarily disclose all facts material to the calculation of insurance risk. The plaintiff underwriters allege that the boat owner repeatedly marked negative on multiple application and renewal forms when asked about prior criminal history. The insurers’ post-loss background check allegedly uncovered an extensive criminal record, including a 2007 felony conviction for possession of marijuana, a 2014 first-degree felony conviction for cocaine trafficking, and a 2014 third-degree felony conviction for money laundering. The insurance companies state they never would have issued the marine policy or provided coverage on the same terms had these material facts been truthfully disclosed.
Contact an Experienced Maritime Insurance Lawyer Today to Protect Your Rights in a Marine Policy Coverage Denial
Navigating a marine insurance claim denial can be an incredibly daunting challenge for boat owners and commercial mariners alike. Insurance companies frequently utilize highly technical policy warranties, strict survey compliance rules, and allegations of material misrepresentation to avoid paying out legitimate claims for vessel theft, hull damage, or maritime salvage. If your marine insurance provider has wrongfully denied your property claim, filed a declaratory judgment action against you, or accused you of breaching a maritime warranty, it is essential to secure qualified legal representation immediately. Our team of seasoned maritime attorneys understands the nuances of federal admiralty law, New York insurance law, and the strict doctrines that govern marine policies. We are dedicated to fighting back against aggressive insurance tactics and helping you recover the compensation you deserve.
Contact us now to speak with a maritime insurance litigation attorney.
Disclaimer: Our firm does not represent the plaintiff in this case and is not involved in the litigation. The information provided is a summary of allegations based on publicly available court filings. We make no representations about the truth of these allegations, are not commenting on the merits of the case, and are not predicting any outcome.
