FOR COVERAGE TO EXIST ON A HOMEOWNERS POLICY THE INSURED MUST RESIDE AT THE RESIDENCE
Barry Zalma
Jan 3, 2024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfgekMeA and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_FSwTv and at https://lnkd.in/gGHwurJK and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4700 posts.
The USDC was asked to grant dueling motions for summary judgment: (1) Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Nationwide”); and (2) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Maurice Heh, substituted by Perry Rutter and Mary Jane Urbanec, Executor and Executrix of Heh’s Estate (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Heh”).
In Perry Rutter And Mary Jane Urbanec, Executor And Executrix Of The Estate Of Maurice Heh, Deceased v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance CompanyP, Civil Action No. 20-1581, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (December 22, 2023) the USDC resolved the dueling motions.
BACKGROUND
Heh owned a home at 206 Parklane Drive in Braddock, Pennsylvania. At all times relevant to this case, Nationwide insured the risks of loss to the structure and contents of the home.
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE POLICY
Heh’s Nationwide Homeowner Policy names Heh as the insured and lists the Property on its Declarations under “Residence Premises Information.” At Page A1 of the Policy, under “Insuring agreement,” Nationwide avers that coverage is contingent on “compliance with all the policy provisions.” Coverage A (Dwelling) is described as coverage of “[t]he dwelling on the residence premises used mainly as your private residence, including attached structures and attached wall-to-wall carpeting.” Coverage C (Personal Property) is described as the coverage of “personal property owned or used by an insured at the residence premises.”
The term “residence premises” is defined as the “one, two, three or four-family dwelling, other structures and grounds located at the mailing address shown on the Declarations unless otherwise indicated.”
THE PROPERTY
Heh purchased the Property in 1990 and resided there with his wife until her passing. On January 1, 2019, Heh agreed to rent the Property and he and tenants entered a leasing agreement. There were indicia in the record that the agreement between Heh and his tenants provided for the possibility that the tenants would rent to own. There were also indicia in the record that Heh included his furniture-either for the tenants’ use during their occupancy or for the tenants to own-in the agreement.
After Heh leased the Property he moved to Point Pleasant Retirement Community. Once he moved into Point Pleasant, it is undisputed that Heh did not at any point move back to the Property.
FIRE AT THE PROPERTY
On February 3, 2020, before the tenants had fully moved out of the Property, there was a fire that resulted in significant physical damage to Heh’s home and the personal property inside of it. After the fire Nationwide investigated the cause of the loss and denied coverage “based upon the policy provision related to the occupancy of the dwelling.” In its investigation, Nationwide determined that Heh “had not resided in the residence premises for an extended period and had not notified Nationwide that the property was rented to tenants.”
Heh sued Nationwide and alleged that an adjuster had determined that the loss caused by the fire resulted in damages over the Policy limit of $172,400.00.
DISCUSSION
Nationwide, in its summary judgment motion, argued the Policy predicates coverage under both coverage provisions on the insured residing at the Property. Nationwide established that there was no factual debate about whether Heh was living at the Property.
Coverage A (Dwelling)
Nationwide argued that Heh’s failure to reside at the Property was an appropriate basis for denial of Coverage A (Dwelling). Because there was no dispute Heh did not reside at the Property at the time of the fire or for a significant amount of time prior thereto, Coverage A (Dwelling) was unambiguously unavailable to him. Such coverage was only available for the dwelling on the residence premises that is used “mainly” as the named insured’s private residence. Since the terms of Coverage A (Dwelling) are not reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that would entitle Heh to coverage where the Property was not being used “in the principal respect” or “more than anything else” as his private residence the Court granted Nationwide’s motion with respect to Heh’s allegation of breach of contract for failure to provide coverage under Coverage A (Dwelling).
Coverage C (Personal Property)
When the Policy is read as a whole and its meaning construed according to its plain language, Coverage C (Personal Property) is conditioned upon the named insured’s residence at the residence premises.
While the Court was not unsympathetic to Heh’s protestation that he should benefit from coverage when he lived at the Property and paid insurance premiums for decades before the 2020 fire, the Court concluded that it was required to give effect to unambiguous language of the Policy.
Nationwide’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and Heh’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
Anyone who reads a homeowners policy – as did the USDC – will see that it only provides coverage if the insured actually lives at the property that is the subject of the insurance. Heh left the residence and moved into a retirement facility. He did not tell his insurer of his move or attempt to obtain coverage for the property as a rental property that is commonly available. As a result of his decision to move Mr. Heh paid for insurance that provided no coverage for the loss to the property although it did provide liability coverage. I, as was the court, am not unsympathetic to the loss incurred by Mr. Heh, he has no one to blame for his loss but himself.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; 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; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gus8Mzkq to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone 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."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
