BROADCASTS.com

b'

\\nInsured Must Reside at Dwelling for Homeowners Policy Coverage to Apply\\n\\n\\nPlaintiff alleged that, on October 28, 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused \\nsignificant damage to his property. Plaintiff alleged that Southern \\nconducted an inspection which constituted \\u201csatisfactory proof of loss,\\u201d \\nbut that Southern failed to adjust the claim or provide compensation to \\nPlaintiff following the inspection. \\xa0Plaintiff alleged that he was \\nforced to hire his own experts, and repair estimates.\\n\\nIn Todd M. Korbel v. Republic Fire And Casualty Insurance Company And \\nSouthern Underwriters Insurance Company, No. 2:21-CV-2214, United States\\n District Court, E.D. Louisiana (May 31, 2023)\\n\\nBACKGROUND\\n\\nPlaintiff sued seeking damages. Southern generally denied\\xa0 the \\nallegations and asserted a number of affirmative defenses including that\\n Plaintiff did not \\u201creside\\u201d at the Property, and that he is therefore \\nnot entitled to coverage under the Policy.\\n\\nAPPLICABLE LAW\\nResidence under the Policy\\n\\nThe plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning of the word \\n\\u201creside\\u201d requires more than purchasing a home or intending to move into \\nit. Plaintiff argued that he received mail, including correspondence \\nfrom Southern, at the Property, that he paid water and electric bills \\nfor the Property in his name, that he was at the Property every day \\nperforming work or checking on the Property, that he had stored some \\nbelongings at the Property, and that he had a homestead exemption on the\\n Property.\\n\\nAs the Fifth Circuit has previously explained to Plaintiff himself in a \\nprevious lawsuit, this evidence is insufficient to create an issue of \\nmaterial fact as to whether Plaintiff resided in or at the Property. In \\nan earlier case Plaintiff brought similar claims for damages and \\nstatutory bad faith penalties under Louisiana law after a house that he \\nhad purchased, but not moved into, was damaged during Hurricane Katrina.\\n The insurer raised the same lack of coverage defense to Plaintiff\'s \\nclaims for certain damages, arguing that Plaintiff did not reside at the\\n property as was required under the insurance coverage contract.\\n\\nAlthough Korbel clearly spent a great deal of time working on the house \\nand intended it to be his residence in the future, this evidence was \\ninsufficient to establish residence. Given that Plaintiff kept only a \\nminimal amount of furniture there and did not engage in leisure \\nactivities at the house, but rather went to the Property to work on or \\ncheck on the house the facts establish he did not reside there.\\n\\nIn fact, Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he did not move into \\nthe Property but was still living at another location at the time the \\nProperty was impacted by Hurricane Zeta. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not \\n\\u2018reside\' at the Property, and is not entitled to coverage under the \\nPolicy.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nHomeowners policies require that the insured reside at the premises that\\n is the subject of the policy. Since the evidence established Korbel did\\n not reside at the premises but only visited for purposes other than \\nresidence and it was in no condition to live in, he did not meet the \\nrequirement of residence as he did not in a previous case he brought to \\nthe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He could have purchased a policy for\\n a property in the course of construction but did not. Once he lost with\\n the same argument it was unwise to make the same losing argument to the\\n to the USDC that had failed on an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.\\n\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n\\n