Date of Purchase and Date of Vacancy

My question involves a dwelling fire policy with basic coverage. The client purchased a home with the intent to renovate the home. The home had been vacant almost a year before the client purchased the property. The client obtained a dwelling fire policy on the newly purchased home. Ten days after closing on the property and before actual renovations began the home was set on fire (arson). The insurance company is taking the position that since the fires were set in 4 separate locations that the fires qualify as vandalism and since the property was vacant for over 60 days there is no coverage for the loss. We are of the opinion that since the insured only owned the property for ten days that he shouldn't be penalized for the property being vacant for an extended period of time prior to his interest in the property. Further we question if the arson is in fact vandalism. We look forward to your opinion.

Pennsylvania Subscriber

To answer your second question first, the arson is indeed vandalism. The policy doesn't define vandalism so standard practice is to refer to a desk dictionary. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., defines vandalism as “the willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property.” Arson is certainly willful or malicious destruction of property.

Your first question is the difficult one. The policy excludes vandalism if the property has been vacant for more than 60 consecutive days immediately before the loss; no mention is made of who owned the property at the time. However the coverage is for the described location as of the effective date of the policy; in your situation that is ten days before the date of loss and the same time as when the insured became owner of the property. Couch on Insurance 148:73 states that “…the vacancy period runs from the issuance of the policy so that any period of vacancy before the issuance does not count toward the 60-day period allowed by the policy, which view may be supported by statute to that effect.” This is supported by Pappas Enterprises, Inc. v. Commerce and Industry Ins. Co., 661 N.E.2d (1996) in which the court stated that the 60-day vacancy provision does not apply in case where part of 60 days of vacancy occurred prior to the day the policy came into force. The same ruling was made in Thomas v. Industrial Fire & Cas. Co. 255 So.2d 486 La.App., (1971) that the exclusion for vacancy over 60 days does not apply if the loss occurs 41 days after the issue date even though the property had been vacant for 76 days.

Therefore, in your situation the dwelling had been vacant only ten days, and arson is indeed vandalism.

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