Oregon Concludes Requirement that Insured Occupy Residence Premises Only Applies to Inception of Policy
Post 5040
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6rrxzv-policy-must-specifically-and-unequivocally-advise-the-insured-of-limitation.html and at https://youtu.be/QXUex0u6ZhY
Ambiguity Makes Condition Unenforceable
In John Durkheimer and Karen Durkheimer v. Safeco Insurance Company Of Illinois, No. 3:24-cv-1333-SB, United States District Court, D. Oregon (April 1, 2025)
John and Karen Durkheimer (“Durkheimers”) sued Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (“Safeco”), alleging claims for breach of insurance contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence per se. The Durkheimers’ residence in southwest Portland suffered significant water damage due to burst water pipes. The Durkheimers submitted an insurance claim to Safeco, the issuer of their homeowner’s insurance policy (“the Policy”). Although Safeco provided partial payment, the Durkheimers claimed additional outstanding damages. Safeco asserted, as its sixth affirmative defense, that “[t]he Policy limits dwelling coverage to the ‘Residence Premises’ . . . [and t]o the extent that [the Durkheimers] did not reside at the Premises when the Loss occurred, the Policy does not cover damage sustained to the Property.” The Durkheimers moved to strike this affirmative defense on the ground that it is insufficient as a matter of law.
The Court agreed with the Durkheimers. The phrase “owned and occupied” is merely a “description” of the property at the time the policyholder obtained insurance.
The USDC held that the insured’s lease of their residence to a third party did not forfeit coverage under a homeowner’s policy for “residence premises” where the policy defined that term as “where you reside.” The court explained that the phrase “where you reside” “could be grammatically interpreted to modify only ‘part of any other building,’ not ‘family dwelling.’”
When a policy leads to multiple reasonable interpretations, that policy does not “explicitly and unambiguously” terminate a homeowner’s policy. Even if a policy is phrased in a way that covers only family dwellings where a policyholder resides, that residence requirement applies to when the policy was first purchased, and not when a claim was filed.
The Durkheimers’ insurance policy did not specifically and unequivocally put them on notice that their coverage would end if they did not reside in the house in question and granted the Durkheimers’ motion to strike.
The Court concluded that the policy is ambiguous, and that therefore, the Durkheimers’ policy did not explicitly put them on notice that they needed to reside at the property to maintain coverage and the Court granted the Durkheimers’ motion to strike.
ZALMA OPINION
Most states have interpreted the fact that a homeowners policy requires an insured to reside in the dwelling for coverage to apply so, if the insured moves out during the policy term, the coverage is void unless the insured advises the insurer and modifies the policy to tenant occupied and pays any additional premium. The USDC, applying Oregon law found the language to be ambiguous and, therefore, reject the defense that the Durkheimers’ did not reside in the residence premises at the time of the loss but did reside there when the policy was issued. Since the weight of authority across the country is different there is a possibility that an appeal will move forward and a different result will occur.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk