Vacancy exclusions are commonplace in many homeowner policies, and typically exclude coverage for certain types of losses if the home is vacant and/or unoccupied. Litigation involving vacancy exclusions can arise when terms in the provision are not defined and an insured claims the terms are ambiguous. In Jarvis v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. … Continue Reading
Disputes involving “vacancy” exclusions typically involve the appropriate definition of that word. We have previously written about such cases here and here. The recently-decided case of Lui v. Essex Ins. Co., 2016 Wash. LEXIS 692 (Wash. June 9, 2016) presents a somewhat different issue, namely, how soon after a vacancy occurs are a policy’s coverages … Continue Reading
In New London County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zachem, 145 Conn. App. 160 (2013), the Connecticut Appellate Court defined the term “vacant” in a vandalism exclusion to mean that a dwelling is “unoccupied,” and does not otherwise contain “items ordinarily associated with habitation,” such as furniture or personal property. The Appellate Court further applied its … Continue Reading
In Chow v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 2013 Mass. App. LEXIS 84 (Mass. App. Ct. May 15, 2013), the insured purchased a house to serve as living quarters for employees of his restaurant. The restaurant’s general manager also resided at the house and served as a caretaker. Eventually, the restaurant closed and the employees moved … Continue Reading
The majority of courts considering the issue of whether “vacant” and “unoccupied” are ambiguous terms and whether they can mean different things hold that they are not ambiguous, that “vacancy” is associated with the lack of inanimate objects in a home, and that “unoccupied” is associated with the absence of human beings living at the … Continue Reading
