NO COVERAGE FOR INSURED WHO DOES NOT RESIDE IN DWELLING
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfgm7FYK and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/guchfJrX and at https://lnkd.in/gKBWET6v and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts .
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their suit against Farmers Automobile Insurance Association (Farmers). The plaintiffs were insured by Farmers for a St. Joseph residence that the plaintiff Judy had inherited from her deceased brother. The plaintiffs filed a claim with the company following a fire that destroyed the residence. Farmers denied the claim as the plaintiffs were not occupying the property at the time of the fire and were therefore not covered under the terms of the policy.
In Judy Dardar and Ivan Dardar v. Farmers Automobile Insurance Association and Jason Sticklen, Farmers Automobile Insurance Association, No. 5-22-0357, 2023 IL App (5th) 220357-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fifth District (June 2, 2023) the claim of the Dardar’s was resolved.
BACKGROUND
Before he died David Jones, Judy’s brother, purchased an insurance policy from Farmers through Sticklen for property and liability insurance coverage for his residence in Champaign County. After David’s death Judy was appointed the legal independent representative of his estate.
Farmers issued a homeowner’s policy amending declarations, which added the decedent’s estate and Judy as additional insureds as well as a non-occupancy permit endorsement.
Once the estate was closed, and the house was transferred to Judy, she began making renovations to the residence. The plaintiffs were undecided as to whether they were going to live in the house after the renovations were complete or sell it. Then, on July 4, 2018, firework embers from an unidentified source caught the house on fire, and it was destroyed.
The plaintiffs never lived in or occupied the home. Judy had no knowledge that the policy was issued without the non-occupancy permit endorsement.
Farmers denied the claim on the basis that the policy covered their “residence premises,” which was defined as:
1 the one-family dwelling where you reside;
2 the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or
3 that part of any other building in which you reside.
Farmers determined that the plaintiffs did not reside at the St. Joseph property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms. Judy claimed Sticklen failed to properly inform Farmers of her condition, and Farmers issued a new policy without the non-occupancy permit endorsement.
The court found that, based on the facts alleged, there was not a sufficient basis
for a breach of contract claim against Farmers and granted Farmers’ motion to dismiss. Based on the relevant facts, the plaintiffs could never plead that they ever resided on the St. Joseph property.
ANALYSIS
The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in granting Farmers’ motion to dismiss the breach of contract count.
A court must construe a policy of insurance as a whole and take into account the type of insurance purchased, the nature of the risks involved, and the overall purpose of the contract.
“Reside” is not ambiguous as it is used in the policy contract language between Farmers and the plaintiffs. The record established that the plaintiffs never lived on the property, were not occupying it in any way, and had not decided whether they would move into the home once the renovations were done. The mere fact that because “reside” has more than one definition does not make it ambiguous when, as here, there is no definition of the word that would apply to the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal, like the trial court, concluded that the term “reside” as used in Farmers’ policy s not ambiguous.
ZALMA OPINION
There is nothing secret or difficult to understand about a policy definition that provides “one-family dwelling where you reside.” Since the insured did not reside in the dwelling and never resided in the premises, the unambiguous requirement of coverage was not met. They could easily have acquired a fire insurance policy that insured the plaintiffs, as a non resident, against the risk of loss of the house by fire. Instead they acquired a homeowners policy that required that they reside in the house. They did not and they recovered nothing.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/guWk7gfM
Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; https://lnkd.in/gYqJ_JcC to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
