FIRE TO A DWELLING NOT USED FOR THE INSURED'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE HELD NOT COVERED

FIRE TO A DWELLING NOT USED FOR THE INSURED'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE HELD NOT COVERED 469_C125

FIRE TO A DWELLING NOT USED FOR THE INSURED'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE HELD NOT COVERED

The insured owner of a dwelling had purchased a homeowner's policy while she was married and residing at the listed premises. After a divorce situation, the dwelling owner placed the dwelling up for rent and moved to a different premises. A renter was found for a short period of time. After the renter vacated the premises, the owner than placed the house for rent-to-own or sale and subsequently found a buyer. Before the papers on the sale of the dwelling could be signed, a fire ensued which destroyed the dwelling.

At the time of the fire, the dwelling was vacant and the insured was living elsewhere. The homeowners policy had not been endorsed to reflect the insured's current address and was still being considered and rated by the insurance company as a single-family, primary residence.

The insured submitted a claim to the homeowners insurance company for the fire loss, which was denied on the basis that the insurance contract was for a single-family, primary resident premises of the insured and the rental property exposure was not covered. The insurer also listed the condition of vacancy as part of the reason for denial.

The insured filed suit against the insurer. An initial decision was rendered by the trial court against the insurance company and in favor of the insured. Part of the decision was based upon the vacancy condition and the wording contained within the condition that states that when the insured takes precautions to shut off the water supply, drain the appliances and maintain heat in the building, a vacant dwelling would be covered. The insurance company appealed.,

Upon review by the appeal court, it was determined that the residency requirement was not ambiguous nor could it be superseded by any alleged ambiguity in the vacancy clause. The decision of the trial court was overturned and ruling was made in favor of the insurance company.

(Grange Mutual Casualty Company, Appellant v. DeMoonie, Appellee. Georgia Court of Appeals, GaCtApp No. A97A0443. July 16, 1997. CCH 1997 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6212.)