We disagree. The condo was not occupied. The vacation community was shut-down as it was out-of-season. We would appreciate your comments.

New York Subscriber

A

The 10 percent extension you noted is for personal property usually located at an insured's residence, other than the residence premises. So, before the insured can seek coverage for the damage at the condo, the property that was burned has to fit this description. If the property that was damaged was not personal property usually located at an insured's residence, the 10 percent extension of coverage in the policy is not available.

As for the insurer's declination of coverage, that is based on the property not covered part of the homeowners policy, specifically paragraph h., property rented or held for rental to others off the residence premises. Since the fire occurred in March and the condo was locked up and no one had access to it, the condo certainly was not rented at the time of loss. However, whether the condo was held for rental is another issue.

A case can be made that a condo that is rented only during the summer months is not actually held for rental during the other nine months of the year. Just because something may be rented at one time, does not mean that it is being held for rental all the time. On the other hand, the insured could have rented the condo at any time he chose, and that could be interpreted as implicitly holding the place for rental. Of course, since the policy language is not clear on this point and an interpretation is subject to reasonable disagreement, the insured is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

We believe that the homeowners policy would apply to this claim. In accordance with the terms of the policy, the insured is entitled to coverage up to 10 percent of the limit of liability for coverage C, or $1,000, whichever is greater.