Insured Must Reside at Dwelling for Homeowners Policy Coverage to Apply
Plaintiff alleged that, on October 28, 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused
significant damage to his property. Plaintiff alleged that Southern
conducted an inspection which constituted “satisfactory proof of loss,”
but that Southern failed to adjust the claim or provide compensation to
Plaintiff following the inspection. Plaintiff alleged that he was
forced to hire his own experts, and repair estimates.
In Todd M. Korbel v. Republic Fire And Casualty Insurance Company And
Southern Underwriters Insurance Company, No. 2:21-CV-2214, United States
District Court, E.D. Louisiana (May 31, 2023)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff sued seeking damages. Southern generally denied the
allegations and asserted a number of affirmative defenses including that
Plaintiff did not “reside” at the Property, and that he is therefore
not entitled to coverage under the Policy.
APPLICABLE LAW
Residence under the Policy
The plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning of the word
“reside” requires more than purchasing a home or intending to move into
it. Plaintiff argued that he received mail, including correspondence
from Southern, at the Property, that he paid water and electric bills
for the Property in his name, that he was at the Property every day
performing work or checking on the Property, that he had stored some
belongings at the Property, and that he had a homestead exemption on the
Property.
As the Fifth Circuit has previously explained to Plaintiff himself in a
previous lawsuit, this evidence is insufficient to create an issue of
material fact as to whether Plaintiff resided in or at the Property. In
an earlier case Plaintiff brought similar claims for damages and
statutory bad faith penalties under Louisiana law after a house that he
had purchased, but not moved into, was damaged during Hurricane Katrina.
The insurer raised the same lack of coverage defense to Plaintiff's
claims for certain damages, arguing that Plaintiff did not reside at the
property as was required under the insurance coverage contract.
Although Korbel clearly spent a great deal of time working on the house
and intended it to be his residence in the future, this evidence was
insufficient to establish residence. Given that Plaintiff kept only a
minimal amount of furniture there and did not engage in leisure
activities at the house, but rather went to the Property to work on or
check on the house the facts establish he did not reside there.
In fact, Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he did not move into
the Property but was still living at another location at the time the
Property was impacted by Hurricane Zeta. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not
‘reside' at the Property, and is not entitled to coverage under the
Policy.
ZALMA OPINION
Homeowners policies require that the insured reside at the premises that
is the subject of the policy. Since the evidence established Korbel did
not reside at the premises but only visited for purposes other than
residence and it was in no condition to live in, he did not meet the
requirement of residence as he did not in a previous case he brought to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He could have purchased a policy for
a property in the course of construction but did not. Once he lost with
the same argument it was unwise to make the same losing argument to the
to the USDC that had failed on an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
