FOR COVERAGE TO EXIST ON A HOMEOWNERS POLICY THE INSURED MUST RESIDE AT
THE RESIDENCE

Post 4700

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
Company, 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. 

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 established that there was no factual debate about whether Heh was living at the Property.
Coverage A (Dwelling

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.


Go to the Insurance Claims Library –
http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.

---

Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support