Court rules 'insured location' includes two addresses on single parcel of land
The court found the potential for coverage because the policy applied to two structures on the same undivided parcel.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that an insurer must defend an insured homeowner because, though the policyholder had two mailing addresses, both were on one parcel of land. The case is Homesite Ins. Co. of the Midwest v. Howell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230991 (W.D. Wash. 2023).
Robert Howell, Sr. and his wife Robin had an easement to access streams on an adjacent property owned by Georgia-Pacific Corporation for a small hydroelectric plant on the Howell’s property. By its terms, this easement would terminate automatically if the Howells didn’t use it for 24 continuous months. After the Howells divorced in 2014, Robert Howell announced his intention to abandon the easement to Georgia-Pacific’s successor, Sierra Pacific Land & Timber (SPLT). The easement went unused from 2015-2017, resulting in termination of the easement.
At some point in or after 2018, the Howells’ son, Robert Howell, Jr., began using and maintaining the pipes his father had abandoned. In September 2020, SPLT sent Howell Jr. a cease-and-desist letter. The issue did not resolve, and SPLT sued the younger Howell in December 2020 for quiet title, ejectment, trespass, waste, nuisance and negligence.
The lawsuit
The Howells had a homeowner’s policy from Homesite Insurance that listed 4848 Mosquito Lake Road, Deming, Washington, as the insured location. In summer 2021, Robin Howell requested, and Homesite made, an amendment to the declarations that changed the insured location to 4890 Mosquito Lake Road. The suit was tendered to Homesite in early July 2021, shortly after the change of address. That September, Homesite agreed to defend Howell Jr. subject to a reservation of rights.
Not quite a month later, Homesite filed suit for a declaration that it no longer owed the Howells a defense and that it was not obligated to indemnify them. The Howells, in turn, argued that they were entitled to a defense, and that Homesite breached the duty of defense by appointing counsel more than two months after tender of the claim.
The addresses
Part of the problem, according to Homesite, was the address of the “insured location.” The underlying suit referenced 4890 Mosquito Lake Road, while the policy had been written for 4848 Mosquito Lake Road. Mrs. Howell and her son claimed that the addresses referred to two separate structures on a single piece of property.
The judges said it wouldn’t make sense to find a lack of coverage based on a difference in address if the addresses referred to separate structures on a single piece of property. Both the legal description of the property in the county records and the complaint implied that the “Howell property” meant a single parcel of land, rather than two adjoining plots. Though courts are typically limited to interpretations based on the “eight corners” of the policy and the complaint, Washington law permitted courts to draw on extrinsic evidence outside those eight corners when determining the application of the duty to defend.
In this case, the judges examined the online records of the county property assessor. A search for the parcel ID number listed in the complaint returned pictures of three buildings, one of which had burned down in 2020. It was also pointed out that a search for 4848 Mosquito Lake Road on the same website returned no results. Mrs. Howell explained she had used a locking mailbox at 4848 Mosquito Lake Road as a means of keeping her ex-husband from accessing her mail.
Finally, the court studied the definition of “insured location” given in the Howells’ Homesite policy. The policy defined “insured location” as “the residence premises; the part of other premises, other structures and grounds used by you as a residence; and … shown in the declarations; or …any premises used by [the insured] in connection with a premises described [above].”
The judges said even if there was a mix-up of the main address of the residence, the other address would still qualify for coverage as an “other structure used as a residence” or “premises used in connection with” the residence. The Howells had submitted evidence that, despite the differing addresses, the “insured location” was really two structures on a single, undivided parcel of land. Based on these facts, the court concluded that the underlying suit could lead to a coverage situation. Since there was the potential for coverage, Homesite was obligated to defend the Howells.
FC&S editor’s note: The duty to defend will always have a broader scope than the duty to indemnify. In this case, Homesite’s argument that the policy couldn’t apply based on the difference in address failed because, according to the policy definition, both addresses were part of the “insured location.”
Analysis brought to you by FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, the recognized authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry. To find out more — or to learn how to find answers to your coverage questions — click here.
Related: