The meaning of "residence premises" in a first party policy was the issue in Dean v. Tower Ins. Co. of New York, 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3088 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012).
The insureds purchased a home. Closing was scheduled to take place on May 20, 2005. The insureds purchased a homeowners' policy from Tower which was to become effect as of the closing date. After the closing, the insureds discovered extensive termite damage to the house. The insureds worked for a year to repair the house. In March 2006, they insured the house for another year. After the restoration of the house was completed, the house was completely destroyed by fire on May 15, 2006.
The insureds notified Tower. Coverage was denied. The insurer contended the dwelling did not qualify as a "residence premises" because it was unoccupied at the time of the fire. The policy defined "residence premises as "the family dwelling. . . where you reside." The term "reside" was not defined in the policy.
The insureds sued. Both parties moved for summary judgment and Tower's motion was granted. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that Tower failed to satisfy its prima facie burden on a motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division determined that the policy was ambiguous as to the meaning of "reside."
The Court of Appeals agreed. The insured claimed that between the date of closing and the date of the fire, he was at the property at least five days a week to work on the house. He slept there on several occasions. Therefore, issues of fact regardingwhether the insured's daily presence at the house were sufficient to satisfy the insurance policy's requirements.
