We believe coverage applies to the structure as the named insured still has an insurable interest in it. We are unsure about on the contents and loss of use. Since the ex-wife is not on the policy, and presuming most if not all of the contents are hers and not the husband's, can the ex-wife's personal property be covered by this HO policy?  How about that of the children?

Also, what about loss of use? We can possibly see covering ALE for the children and even the ex-wife's temporary accommodations to take care of the children, but should we cover the ex-wife's meals?

Kentucky Subscriber

You have a number of things going on. While the wife may be on the deed, that has no relation to the insurance policy other than to prove insurable interest, which the husband has. The wife is living in the house but not with the husband, so she is not a member of his household, and is therefore not an insured. Same with the children; they must be in the household to be insureds under his policy.

There are a number of things that must be present in order for the property to be an “insured location,” the first being that it is a “residence premises,” which is the dwelling where the insured resides. He does not reside in the premises, so it is not an “insured location.” None of the other indicators that it is an “insured location” seem to apply either as he is not using or living in the property.

Coverage A is for the residence premises, the dwelling where he lives, and he is not living in the insured property. Technically, there is no coverage. However he has been paying premium and is on the deed, so the carrier might be willing to provide coverage. If not, it should at least refund the premium. Same with ALE—it must make the premises the insured is living in unfit to live in, and he does not live in the property, therefore he has no need for ALE.  He may be required to provide for the children in the divorce decree, but that does not mean his insurance company has to provide ALE for them when they do not reside with him.

Now, ISO created a new endorsement, HO 06 48, that redefined “residence premises” and would allow for coverage if it had been added to the policy.

This is based on strict policy interpretation; what is listed in the divorce decree could be significant if the husband was ordered to provide insurance for the dwelling and simply had no understanding of the inherent coverage issues. That is where this gets hairy—the decree may require the husband to provide certain things, but it does not obligate the carrier. Consulting with an attorney could be helpful.