The HO-3 policy covers the residence premises listed on the dec page. If the named insured is no longer a resident at the listed location when a fire destroys the dwelling, I was told at a CIC seminar that there would be no coverage. But then I questioned whether the liability section of the HO-3 would still provide coverage. The answer I received from the instructor was that the named insured would still be covered under the liability section since there is no territorial limitation. However, the policy defines “insured location” as the residence premises listed on the dec page as well as other location such as vacant land. If the named insured is no longer residing at the listed location, wouldn't liability coverage also cease not only at the residence premises but in total since liability coverage emanates from the residence premises?

Hawaii Subscriber

It depends on the exact nature of the loss. If the loss arises out of a premises owned by, rented to, or rented to others by an insured that is not an insured location, so there is no coverage. If someone is injured at a house the insured is renting, but that house is not the one listed on the dec, there is no coverage. However, if an insured is walking his dog and the dog bites a passerby, there is coverage. The definition of “insured” is not relative to the residence premises on the policy.