Coverage for Damage to Vacant Dwelling Limited
Post number 5388
Vandalism Damage to Vacant Dwelling Excluded
Posted on July 7, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Tyrone Williamson v. Farmers Insurance Co., 2026-Ohio-2530, C. A. No. 30717, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery (July 2, 2026) Tyrone Williamson owned a duplex in Dayton, Ohio that he rented as two separate units. While the units were unoccupied by tenants, break-ins occurred in February, March, and April 2024, causing damage to doors, windows, walls, plumbing, flooring, fencing, lighting, a ceiling fan, grass, and other parts of the property, and resulting in the theft of items including tools, generators, a power washer, an air-conditioning unit, car wheels, and a radio.
Farmers Insurance paid approximately $17,000 for some damage from the first break-in but denied other claimed losses, including additional property damage, stolen personal property, and lost rent.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Farmers Insurance on Williamson’s complaint.
FACTS
The first payment covered the damage to the garage door, five of the exterior doors, and two windows. Williamson testified he was asked what damages occurred at the property that were not covered by the $17,000 payment. Williamson stated that he was also seeking lost rent under the policy. He explained that he had not sought reimbursement for the air conditioner, tools, generators, radio, car wheels, and power washer because the insurance adjuster told him that these times were excluded from coverage under the insurance policy.
In seeking summary judgment on Williamson’s request for reimbursement for these damages, Farmers Insurance relied on the vacancy exclusion.
Because there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the rental units were vacant for at least 30 consecutive days at the time of loss, the Court of Appeals must conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on Williamson’s complaint to the extent he sought reimbursement for these damages.
LAW:
Summary judgment is reviewed only when no genuine issue of material fact remains, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion adverse to the nonmoving party. Insurance policies are interpreted under ordinary contract principles; clear language is enforced as written, ambiguous provisions are construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured, and exclusions apply only to losses clearly intended to be excluded.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The appellate court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the duplex was “vacant” under the policy. Although the parties focused on whether Williamson was constructing, altering, or repairing the property, the policy defined “vacant” as the absence of most furniture and other items needed for human occupancy.
The record did not establish, as a matter of law, that most such items were absent, and the policy did not define “items needed for human occupancy.” Because stoves and refrigerators arguably qualified as such items and were present, Farmers Insurance did not conclusively prove the vacancy exclusion barred coverage for dwelling-related damage.
The court held that the policy plainly excluded coverage for theft of personal property, including materials and supplies, and also barred lost-rent coverage because no tenants were renting the premises at the time of the losses.
CONCLUSION:
The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the trial court. Summary judgment was improper on Williamson’s claims for dwelling-related damage because factual questions remained about vacancy.
ZALMA OPINION
The Vacancy exclusion exists in almost every dwelling coverage because when a dwelling is left vacant the risk of loss is increased logarithmically. The language eliminates coverage after the dwelling is left vacant and not sufficient for human occupancy for 30 days. Since, on a motion, the insurer was unable to prove the vacancy exceeded 30 days the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court to see if that defense could be proved. Insurance is a contract and Farmers proved some of its defenses and left available some parts of the loss not yet proved to be determined at trial or another motion for summary judgment.
(c) 2026 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://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
RICO Suit Against Law Firm & Health Care Pros Fails
Posted on October 28, 2026 by Barry Zalma
UBER AND FEDEX FIGHT FRAUD
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is Designed to Defeat Fraud Perpetrators
In Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Simon & Simon P.C., et al., Civil Action No. 25-5365, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (October 13, 2026) Uber Technologies, Inc. and Federal Express Corporation sued attorney Marc Simon, his firm Simon & Simon, P.C., and several medical professionals and practices under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
They allege the defendants orchestrated a scheme to generate and litigate fraudulent personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents involving Uber and FedEx drivers. Uber and FedEx incurred defense costs and paid settlements on some claims. The court earlier denied a motion to dismiss, finding proximate causation adequately pleaded. Fact discovery is set to close December 21, 2026.
Discovery showed Uber’s...
No Breach of Contract no Bad Faith
Post 4568
Posted on October 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Party Cannot Designate One Witness While Submitting An Undifferentiated Product Of That Witness And An Undesignated Collaborator.
Post 4568
In Dustin Cain; Amanda Cain v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 25-60442, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (October 16, 2026) Dustin and Amanda Cain sought homeowners’ insurance benefits after a tree fell on their Mississippi home on August 27, 2022. State Farm concluded that the tree caused only a roof puncture and that other damage resulted from excluded long-term conditions. It paid $10,042.90 and later an additional $3,130.08.
The Cains relied on an engineering report and contractor estimate asserting substantially greater damage, sued for breach of contract and related relief, and designated Sean Fee as their sole expert. Fee’s report and a later repair estimate were jointly authored with Jim Irmiter, but neither document identified which opinions, work, or ...
Blockchain Fraud Detection Loses Protection
Posted on October 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
John Earl Madden (April 10, 1936 – December 28, 2021) was an American Professional Football Coach and Sports Commentator in the National Football League Seeking Patent & Trademark Protection
BLOCKCHAIN FRAUD
Mr. Madden was more than football. He was working to establish a program called “Fraud Protection Systems, Methods, and Computer Programs for Blockchain Financial Transactions.”
In Ex parte John Madden, Appeal 2026-001497, Application 18/495,506, Technology Center 3600, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (October 14, 2026)
The Examiner rejected claims several numbered claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
THE LAW
Section 101 makes patentable any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are implicitly excluded.
THE PATENT TRIAL AND ...
