What constitutes “insured location”?

[SteveStL]

I’m in Missouri if it matters.

This is about personal property loss due to fire. With an ho-3 insurance policy, does “insured location” include a rented building at a separate address used for a hobby?

Specifically, the insured homeowner has no basement and minimal garage so rented warehouse space for the pursuit of personal hobby activities. Insured is there frequently, maintains snacks, drinks, TV, etc. and occasionally entertains others on the premises in pursuit of said hobby.

Would personal property loss (fire) coverage fall under off-premises limits, or under item C, a premises used in connection with the resident premises, and why?

 

[NeilTheCop]

The insurance company is the one to ask.

 

[FlyingRon]

Insured location is what the policy says is insured. I can't imagine the off-site warehouse rental would be an insured location unless it's specifically listed on the policy.

 

[SteveStL]

The insurance company is the one to ask.

Perhaps in advance, and then getting it in writing, but after the fact when making a claim that’s just a little too trusting. Example: They (agents) have without exception told all involved that no automobile is covered, period, end of story. Yet the fine print states unambiguously otherwise in the case of a vehicle which has been disabled/on blocks for extended storage. Several people have blindly trusted their agent and settled.

 

[SteveStL]

Insured location is what the policy says is insured. I can't imagine the off-site warehouse rental would be an insured location unless it's specifically listed on the policy.

No, in fact, it is not, which is why the language in question is mandated by law in such policies. And in the case of the liability aspect of such a policy there is significant legal precedent that coverage extends to remote places perfectly analogous to this. Unfortunately people are presented with the broad definitions and often accept them when the part working in their favor is buried in the full document few see again after signing up. So I’m not looking for a debate, I’m looking for someone with actual legal knowledge on the subject and experience in a comparable scenario.

 

[SteveStL]

One approach is to read 10 a-c then ask why exactly c was mandated. What scenario necessitates/justifies the wording in c yet does not extend to my situation? Note that both b and c clearly indicate that other premises can in fact be covered without having been explicitly added to the policy (that’s covered elsewhere entirely).


10. “Insured location” means:

a. the residence premises;

b. the part of any other premises, other structures, and grounds used by you as a residence. This includes premises, structures, and grounds you acquire while this policy is in effect for your use as a residence;

c. any premises used by you in connection with the premises included in 10.a. or 10.b. above.

 

[quincy]

I’m in Missouri if it matters.

This is about personal property loss due to fire. With an ho-3 insurance policy, does “insured location” include a rented building at a separate address used for a hobby?

Specifically, the insured homeowner has no basement and minimal garage so rented warehouse space for the pursuit of personal hobby activities. Insured is there frequently, maintains snacks, drinks, TV, etc. and occasionally entertains others on the premises in pursuit of said hobby.

Would personal property loss (fire) coverage fall under off-premises limits, or under item C, a premises used in connection with the resident premises, and why?

Who owns the rental property? Is it insured by the owner?

 

[FlyingRon]

No, in fact, it is. Most of the court cases involve ambiguity in the specification in the policy. If you're expecting that you have an argument that not having a basement gives you necessity to rent an off-site storage facility, and that makes it an insured location barring something int he policy that makes it so, you are mistaken. My comment In the original post stems from the fact that we can't see your policy.

The common clause in policies is that Insured Location means the listed in the declarations. Often this is extended to include newly acquired property that you are using as your primary residence (note this is for issues regarding personal property loss and liability), or certain locations that are temporary residences of the insured person. Sometimes, there will be a provision for "used in conjunction with the insured location" that will cover things like storage, but again, the policy is most determining. You have to start there.

 

[SteveStL]

Who owns the rental property? Is it insured by the owner?

It is owned by a family-owned corporate entity, no relation to me. It is insured for the real property value but not contents, which are the responsibility of the tenant. There is a case to be made against the owner in that by all indications the sprinkler system failed even to activate, but any recovery in that scenario would be ACV and after legal expenses etc., not to mention a potentially protracted battle. Meanwhile my insurance is for replacement cost (if actually replaced) and would settle quickly if the location is covered. My insurance company would then be in a position to go after the owner in an attempt to subrogate their losses.

 

[Zigner]

Well, since you've got all the answers...why are you here?

 

[SteveStL]

No, in fact, it is. Most of the court cases involve ambiguity in the specification in the policy. If you're expecting that you have an argument that not having a basement gives you necessity to rent an off-site storage facility, and that makes it an insured location barring something int he policy that makes it so, you are mistaken. My comment In the original post stems from the fact that we can't see your policy.

The common clause in policies is that Insured Location means the listed in the declarations. Often this is extended to include newly acquired property that you are using as your primary residence (note this is for issues regarding personal property loss and liability), or certain locations that are temporary residences of the insured person. Sometimes, there will be a provision for "used in conjunction with the insured location" that will cover things like storage, but again, the policy is most determining. You have to start there.

As stated in my original post, this is a typical ho-3 policy and the language in question in standard/mandated. See above where I followed up with 10 a-c. What exactly is the purpose of this required language (designed to protect the consumer)? Straight to the point, what scenario does it cover which would not also encompass mine?

Edit: for some reason my direct quote of 10
a-c has not cleared moderation?
Copied here:

10. “Insured location” means:

a. the residence premises;

b. the part of any other premises, other structures, and grounds used by you as a residence. This includes premises, structures, and grounds you acquire while this policy is in effect for your use as a residence;

c. any premises used by you in connection with the premises included in 10.a. or 10.b. above.

 

[SteveStL]

Well, since you've got all the answers...why are you here?

Why the attitude? I have a layman’s logical interpretation following a lot of reading and thought. What I’m looking for now is an expert opinion and hopefully reference to legal precedent.

 

[FlyingRon]

What's with YOUR attitude? You've been nothing but snippy to every post in this forum. You want someone to do legal research for you, there's forty pages of attorneys in that yellow book next to your phone that will be glad to do so for a fee.

You didn't say anything about the nature of your policy before. Was I supposed to guess? Even with an HO-3, you need to look at what is written on it. You skipped telling us where until late in the thread. But I can tell you, case law is against you. HO-3 says what I paraphrased above. The caselaw pretty much is against randomly pulling in other locations just because they are tangentially related to the primary residence. The words "would have made a mockery of the content of insured location" in one case.

As for the liability of the storage facility, you've got a mixed bag there. You can argue they had some duty to maintain the sprinkler system (if it indeed failed), but generally if someone other unit causes a fire, you're out of luck trying to hold the facility owner responsible in the general case. There's good reason to have specific insurance on the unit if you've got stuff that's valuable in it.

 

[SteveStL]

What's with YOUR attitude? You've been nothing but snippy to every post in this forum. You want someone to do legal research for you, there's forty pages of attorneys in that yellow book next to your phone that will be glad to do so for a fee.

You didn't say anything about the nature of your policy before. Was I supposed to guess? Even with an HO-3, you need to look at what is written on it.

Snippy? So far that seems to describe only you. I’m trying my best to be clear, concise, factual, nothing more. I’m not asking anyone to do legal research. I was merely hoping to attract someone with relevant direct knowledge and experience who would take a moment to share that. Why else would they even be here?? Instead I get confrontation.

 

[FlyingRon]

The Missouri Supreme Court in Smith v. MegaInsuranceCompany says that your storage locker is always an extension of your insured location and you have full coverage as your insured residence.