We do not see any coverage for the dwelling. Based on definitions contained in the policy, the definitions that would lead to coverage are not met.

“Insured Premises” means, for property coverage, “Described Location: If “you” [the insured named in the declarations] own and reside in the 'residence' shown on the 'declarations' as the described location, the 'insured premises' means: 1) that 'residence'; and 2) related private structures and grounds at that location.” The insuring agreement for Coverage A states that “'We' [the insurer] cover the 'residence' on the 'insured premises'.” “Residence” means a “one to four family house…used mainly for residential purposes.” Now, the brother is the named insured on the declarations and owns the property; however, he does not reside there.

The principle of homeowners coverage requiring ownership and occupancy by the named insured appears to be upheld. See, for example, the case of Bolivar v. Blue Ridge Insurance Company, 1999 WL 989585 (Unpublished Conn. Super.) where the court said “It is apparent that the subject homeowners policy, when read as a whole, was written to insure premises where the insured resides or dwells, as those terms are most commonly used. The term “homeowners policy,” in and of itself, is not ambiguous. Rather, the common usage of the term implies insurance coverage for the insured's home, residence or dwelling….the requirement that the insured reside in at least a part of the premises is constant.” Here, the insureds purchased some property and insured it on a homeowners form, even though they never resided at the insured property.

See also Heniser v. Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance, 534 N.W.2d 502 ( Mich. 1995). Here, the insured sold a vacation home under a land contract; two months following the sale the property was destroyed by fire. The court said that the “provision in homeowner's insurance policy definition of 'residence premises,' wherein premises was not only required to be shown in policy's declarations but also was required to be premises 'where you reside,' was unambiguous statement of coverage requiring insured's residence at premises at time of loss, not affirmative or continuing.”

Regarding coverage for personal property, the policy does promise to cover personal property owned by or in the care of an “insured.” So, if the named insured had any personal property on the premises, it would appear to be covered. There would be no coverage for the sister's property. Coverage applies only for property of a guest while on the part of the residential premises occupied by an insured. Since the sister is not a guest, nor does any insured (by definition) occupy part of the residence premises, there is no coverage.

Loss of use (or, in this case, loss of rents) would also appear to have no available coverage. The coverage is tied to a part of the “insured premises” being made unfit, and if the dwelling does not meet the definition of “insured premises,” then no case can be made for coverage.