BROADCASTS.com

b'

The Lack of Coverage by a Homeowners Policy if the Insured Does Not Actually Live There

https://zalma.com/blog

The homeowners policy language unambiguously requires that the property at issue be the insured\'s "residence premises" for coverage to apply. It does not require that the property be the Insured\\u2019s domicile.

The "insured location" was defined in relevant part to mean "the residence premises," and the "residence premises" was defined to mean the dwelling where the insureds "reside and which is shown as the \'residence premises\' in the Declarations." Faced with such clear and unambiguous language, a court is required to enforce the exact language of the policy that unambiguously required the insured to reside at the insured premises at the time of the loss. If the insured resided in a different location there could be no coverage.

A policy\'s definition of "residence premises" that specifically requires that the property listed as the insured property be the property where the insured resides. When plaintiffs\' application for homeowners insurance indicated that the home would be occupied by the owners (i.e., plaintiffs) and not a tenant they were required to live there for the coverages promised to apply. Furthermore, as relevant to the circumstances at issue "occupy" means to reside in as an owner or tenant. Because there is no irreconcilable conflict between the provisions the named insured plaintiffs could not establish the existence of an ambiguity in the insurance contract.

Because the "and" in the policy\'s definition of residence premises requires more than residence \\u2014 it also requires the persons insured to live there. That residence requirement is clear and explicit and the plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning of the word "reside" requires more than purchasing a home or intending to move into it. The Fifth Circuit concluded that once the insureds repeatedly admitted that they never "resided" at the property the home did not satisfy the policy\'s "residence" requirement and was not a covered "residence premises."  [Geovera Specialty Ins. Co. v. Joachin, 964 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2020)]