The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim because there was a disputed issue of fact regarding the applicability of the vandalism exclusion. Poole v. Untied Servs. Auto. Assn., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2394 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2014).
The plaintiff rented a residence to tenants. The tenants performed repairs to the residence which resulted in damage in excess of $126,000. The tenants vacated the residence. The plaintiff submitted a claim to USAA for benefits under her homeowners' policy.
USAA denied coverage based upon exclusions for damage caused by, among other things, faulty workmanship, renovation and remodeling. Plaintiff sued and USAA moved for summary judgment.
The policy did not insure loss caused by vandalism if the dwelling had been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days. USAA's motion was denied because it failed to establish that pliantiff's loss resulted from a cause other than vandalism. Although the policy excluded for loss arising form inadequate renovations or workmanship, USAA failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the work done by the tenants, which allegedly was performed without plaintiff's permission, constituted renovations rather than mere vandalism.
