Our question involves vacant land. The homeowners policy (HO 00 03 05 01) defines an insured location to include vacant land, other than farmland, owned by or rented to an insured.

Would farmland that is not in production because it is in a governmental set-aside or conservation program be considered vacant? Does it matter if the insured is being paid by the government to not raise crops on the land?

Wisconsin Subscriber

It is important to note that farmland—even though it is "vacant" in the sense that it is without inanimate objects—is not included within the homeowners definition of "insured location" because of the increased exposure presented by farmland. The question then becomes: if the land is not being farmed, is it still farmland?

One could argue that a farmer—by rotating his crops—often leaves some of his land without crops. Does the absence of crops from a particular section for a year mean that the section is not "farmland" for that period of time?

It would appear that farmland that once was farmed, but is now lying dormant because of government payment, is still farmland (at least the government would consider it so). As such, it does not fall within the definition of "insured location" in the homeowners policy.

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