Other Insurance and Personal Property at Secondary Residence

Our insured had a total fire at his vacation home. The home is insured on a DP 00 01 (07 88) and includes a limit of $5,000 for contents. There was no problem with settling the loss for the building, but now we are questioning the adjuster's offer on the contents. He wants to see the insured's primary homeowners policy in order to apportion the contents settlement. He says that since the primary homeowners policy probably provides 10% off premises coverage for property at another residence, it should contribute. Consequently, the insurer has offered a reduced settlement based on what it thinks its portion should be.

The insured's primary homeowners is insured on an HO 00 03 with another carrier. Does the policy language regarding personal property usually located at an insured's residence, other than the residence premises, bear on the vacation home insurer's right to apportion the claim?

 

New Jersey Subscriber

 

The vacation home insurer is mistaking the HO 00 03 policy provision of coverage for property usually located at another residence other than the residence premises for an other insurance condition. The other insurance clause refers to other insurance covering the same property, and that is not necessarily the case here.

You would want to see if the insured can separate the destroyed property into that which is always at the vacation home, such as furniture, cooking utensils, dishes, etc., and that which is usually there—clothing, perhaps, or fishing gear, which might be taken to the vacation home over the course of the summer and left there. This is the type of property that would fall under the HO 00 03's reference to property “usually at another residence.”

So, in the situation you describe, the insured is within his rights to ask the fire insurer—the insurer closest to the risk—to pay for the damaged property always at the vacation home. Then, the HO 00 03 can be called upon to pay for any other property that was usually kept at the vacation home and that was not paid for by the fire insurer.

Bottom line, the intent is to make the insured whole, as nearly as possible, and not to force a misreading of the policies.

 

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis