What’s the Story on “Resident Premises?”

In Insurance law, Insurance News, Property Insurance on August 2, 2013 at 1:32

A recent Claims Journal article provides insight and further clarity – or reasons for confusion – regarding the phrase “resident premises.”

According to the report, “An insured must reside at their property to have coverage for damage to their home under an HO form policy. The defense arises out of the typical HO policy’s definition of ‘residence premises,’ and the introductory clause in the building coverage portion of the policy that explains what the insurer covers.

“Insurers previously relied on the ‘vacancy’ exclusion in these circumstances. The ‘vacancy’ exclusion, however, only precludes coverage for homes that are devoid of all contents.”

This definition relates to a case from more than 40 years ago — Hehemann v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 240 So. 2d 851, 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).

Appellate decisions are still in limbo in on the clear directive of “residence premises.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: