Residency and Ownership

October 25, 2012

Our insured was living in a residence located in south-central California approximately 16 months prior to a total loss fire. The insured had moved to northern California to help attend to her elderly mother. The insured would revisit the south-central residence at least once a month. The insured's mailing address and employment was transferred to northern California.

The total loss fire occurred at her south-central California residence, while the insured was in northern California. Does the insured maintain her status as an occupant of the south-central California residence? Also, what is the definition of occupancy?

The homeowner's policy we are dealing with is an HO-3, Edition 4-91. We would appreciate it if you would review this matter and advise us as to your opinion regarding occupancy.

California Subscriber

When a term is not defined in a policy, court practice is to go to a standard desk reference; it what most insureds have available to them. Merriam Webster online defines occupancy as: the fact or condition of holding, possessing, or residing in or on something . While the insured owned the property, she was not occupying it at the time of loss. Visiting is not occupying, and the 91 form defines residence premises as the one family dwelling where the named insured resides. Since the insured's residence and employment were transferred to northern California, she was not residing in southern California, therefore there is no coverage.