Vacancy Definition under Scrutiny

Our question is on form BP 00 02 01 87 under the vacancy provision, which contains an exclusion for buildings that have been “vacant” for more than sixty days. However, there is no definition given for “vacancy.” Our concern is with condo associations insured under this form. Many associations are now constructing single family units. Many folks that own these units have them for seasonal occupancy, which means that they are not there for extended periods of time, which can cause problems under this coverage exclusion.
With no definition being given we have resorted to Webster for their definition of vacant. This describes vacant as being empty, having no contents, and void.
This definition leads us to believe that in our case, the condo unit is not vacant during those extended periods of time that the owners are away, as their furnishings are there. Please provide your interpretation of the vacancy clause. 

Ohio Subscriber

We agree with your assessment of “vacancy” in this instance. Couch on Insurance states that “vacant” means without goods or personal property, while “unoccupied” means that no one is living in the premises. So, if the condos contain personal property, they are not vacant but are unoccupied.

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