Premium Only Content
Second Attempt at Same Argument Fails
Insured Must Reside at Dwelling for Homeowners Policy Coverage to Apply
Plaintiff alleged that, on October 28, 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to his property. Plaintiff alleged that Southern conducted an inspection which constituted “satisfactory proof of loss,” but that Southern failed to adjust the claim or provide compensation to Plaintiff following the inspection. Plaintiff alleged that he was forced to hire his own experts, and repair estimates.
In Todd M. Korbel v. Republic Fire And Casualty Insurance Company And Southern Underwriters Insurance Company, No. 2:21-CV-2214, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (May 31, 2023)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff sued seeking damages. Southern generally denied the allegations and asserted a number of affirmative defenses including that Plaintiff did not “reside” at the Property, and that he is therefore not entitled to coverage under the Policy.
APPLICABLE LAW
Residence under the Policy
The plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning of the word “reside” requires more than purchasing a home or intending to move into it. Plaintiff argued that he received mail, including correspondence from Southern, at the Property, that he paid water and electric bills for the Property in his name, that he was at the Property every day performing work or checking on the Property, that he had stored some belongings at the Property, and that he had a homestead exemption on the Property.
As the Fifth Circuit has previously explained to Plaintiff himself in a previous lawsuit, this evidence is insufficient to create an issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff resided in or at the Property. In an earlier case Plaintiff brought similar claims for damages and statutory bad faith penalties under Louisiana law after a house that he had purchased, but not moved into, was damaged during Hurricane Katrina. The insurer raised the same lack of coverage defense to Plaintiff's claims for certain damages, arguing that Plaintiff did not reside at the property as was required under the insurance coverage contract.
Although Korbel clearly spent a great deal of time working on the house and intended it to be his residence in the future, this evidence was insufficient to establish residence. Given that Plaintiff kept only a minimal amount of furniture there and did not engage in leisure activities at the house, but rather went to the Property to work on or check on the house the facts establish he did not reside there.
In fact, Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he did not move into the Property but was still living at another location at the time the Property was impacted by Hurricane Zeta. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not ‘reside' at the Property, and is not entitled to coverage under the Policy.
ZALMA OPINION
Homeowners policies require that the insured reside at the premises that is the subject of the policy. Since the evidence established Korbel did not reside at the premises but only visited for purposes other than residence and it was in no condition to live in, he did not meet the requirement of residence as he did not in a previous case he brought to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He could have purchased a policy for a property in the course of construction but did not. Once he lost with the same argument it was unwise to make the same losing argument to the to the USDC that had failed on an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at zalma@zalma.com; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
-
7:40
Barry Zalma, Inc. on Insurance Law
11 months agoLoss of Inventory by Bankruptcy
150 -
10:02
MichaelBisping
21 hours agoBISPING: "Was FURY ROBBED?!" | Oleksandr Usyk vs Tyson Fury 2 INSTANT REACTION
67K13 -
8:08
Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News
2 days ago16 States Join Forces To Sue Firearm Manufacturers Out of Business - 1st Target = GLOCK
97.5K86 -
10:17
Dermatologist Dr. Dustin Portela
2 days ago $17.70 earnedOlay Cleansing Melts: Dermatologist's Honest Review
137K14 -
1:02:20
Trumpet Daily
2 days ago $42.82 earnedObama’s Fake World Comes Crashing Down - Trumpet Daily | Dec. 20, 2024
94.9K59 -
6:29
BIG NEM
1 day agoCultivating God Mode: Ancient Taoist NoFap Practices
70.1K17 -
30:53
Uncommon Sense In Current Times
2 days ago $11.03 earned"Pardon or Peril? How Biden’s Clemency Actions Could Backfire"
83.6K7 -
40:01
CarlCrusher
1 day agoSkinwalker Encounters in the Haunted Canyons of Magic Mesa - ep 4
77.1K9 -
59:44
PMG
2 days ago $10.28 earned"BETRAYAL - Johnson's New Spending Bill EXPANDS COVID Plandemic Powers"
78.3K49 -
6:48:50
Akademiks
1 day agoKendrick Lamar and SZA disses Drake and BIG AK? HOLD UP! Diddy, Durk, JayZ update. Travis Hunter RUN
196K35