What constitutes “insured location”?

[quincy]

You really need to discuss what is covered with your homeowners insurance agent and you should read over the rental agreement to see what the property owner’s liability coverage includes under its fire loss provisions.

We have on this forum a former insurance claims adjuster (“adjusterjack”) who might be able to provide you with some additional information. But what is covered under your policy will ultimately depend on the wording of your specific policy.

 

[SteveStL]

You really need to discuss what is covered with your homeowners insurance agent and you should read over the rental agreement to see what the property owner’s liability coverage includes under its fire loss provisions.

We have on this forum a former insurance claims adjuster (“adjusterjack”) who might be able to provide you with some additional information. But what is covered under your policy will ultimately depend on the wording of your specific policy.

I’ve done all of that. My agent despite 30+ years in the business doesn’t discuss such details, that’s for the claims side. He simply suggests filing the loss to see what happens. I prefer to be prepared, particularly having now learned what others were told by their agents and blindly accepted. And again, my understanding of the mandated HO-3 language in question is that while surprisingly vague in some ways it’s the same for all policies. The insurer can expand on it to provide more insured-friendly exceptions , but it defines the minimum coverage rules. In other words I cannot have an HO-3 compliant policy with less coverage protection than it states, including that described in 10 a-c.

I’d like to hear from adjusterjack. While they may not be the decision maker on a question such as this (as opposed to valuation issues) they may have been involved in analogous claims.

 

[quincy]

Why haven’t you acquired renters insurance? It is relatively cheap and would cover what your homeowners insurance is unlikely to cover.

 

[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. 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.

I see you have now edited this but I had already quoted the original. But to your statement “You skipped telling us where until late in the thread.” go back and read my (unedited) first few lines of the original post. I was quite clear in leading with the fact that it is an ho-3 policy.

 

[adjusterjack]

Hard to believe that this thread went off the rails in less than 8 hours. Everybody, please stop posting. I am creating a reply that will explain everything.

 

[SteveStL]

Why haven’t you acquired renters insurance? It is relatively cheap and would cover what your homeowners insurance is unlikely to cover.

You are absolutely correct and that is entirely on me. Arguably, if my assertion holds then in fact I am covered without needlessly throwing away money on duplicate coverage. For example, a storage locker is covered up to the 10% rule yet some people don’t know that. But yes, at an absolute minimum I should have asked these questions sooner and planned/acted accordingly. Fortunately my stupidity should not alter the relevant facts.

 

[adjusterjack]

I said "stop posting." I'll be back shortly with an explanation.

 

[adjusterjack]

I’m looking for someone with actual legal knowledge on the subject and experience in a comparable scenario.

That would be me.

My reference is a standard HO-3 policy form distributed to the insurance industry by ISO (Insurance Services Office). Even when insurance companies use their own forms, the forms almost completely follow the standard form.

The question is about personal property.

Steve, the definition of "Insured Location" you posted is not complete, so let's start with that. You can verify by going back to your own policy. Line "h" applies to your rented warehouse where your personal property is located for hobby purposes.

"Insured location" means:
a. The "residence premises";
b. The part of other premises, other structures and grounds used by you as a residence; and
(1) Which is shown in the Declarations; or
(2) Which is acquired by you during the policy period for your use as a residence;
c. Any premises used by you in connection with a premises described in a. and b. above;
d. Any part of a premises:
(1) Not owned by an "insured"; and
(2) Where an "insured" is temporarily residing;
e. Vacant land, other than farm land, owned by or rented to an "insured";
f. Land owned by or rented to an "insured" on which a one, two, three or four family dwelling is being built as a residence for an "insured";
g. Individual or family cemetery plots or burial vaults of an "insured"; or
h. Any part of a premises occasionally rented to an "insured" for other than "business" use.

The argument about "c" is not necessary because "h" applies to the warehouse where you engage in your hobby.

You wrote:

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.

You'll have to show me that provision (quote it word for word) because there is no such fine print in the standard form HO-3. That vehicle would not be covered as personal property.

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.

True.

My agent despite 30+ years in the business doesn’t discuss such details, that’s for the claims side. He simply suggests filing the loss to see what happens.

He's right. Agents have no business discussing coverage or claims. Many of them barely know the names of the policies that they sell. As a consumer I have talked to many agents who don't even keep sample policies in their office.

Steve, if you have any more questions about your coverage I will be happy to address them.

If you actually had a loss at the warehouse please provide the details.

Meantime, the rest of you, please chill.

 

[Zigner]

What is the "hobby"?

 

[SteveStL]

That would be me.

Thanks Jack.

My original focus was on 10.h as you pointed out but I kept tripping over “occasionally” and that is not a defined word, leaving it to common usage which may not favor me. So I started leaning more on 10.c and wondering why it even exists if not for something analogous to this.

The “motor vehicle” issue may not be HO-3 at all. There is an explicit exclusion for “motor vehicles” which is bold and defined elsewhere as:

The following are not motor vehicles:
a. ...

b. a motorized land vehicle in storage on an insured location not intended to be operated for an extended period of time and rendered inoperable by placing the vehicle on blocks or removing parts essential for its operation;

Then later there is this definition of exceptions for recreational vehicles which are covered (some losses are of race-only vehicles, not licensed or legal on public roads):

a “recreational or utility vehicle” while off an in- sured location. “Recreational or utility vehicle” means a motorized vehicle designed for recre- ation or utility purposes, used principally off public roads, and that is owned or leased by an insured. This includes, but is not limited to, a motorized all-terrain vehicle, side-by-side vehicle, utility work vehicle, amphibious vehicle, dune buggy, go-cart, golf cart, snowmobile, trail- bike, minibike, and personal assistive mobility device. “Leased” does not include temporary rental;

I will describe the actual loss information in a following post.

 

[SteveStL]

The loss in question took place in a large multi-purpose warehouse. The building is divided into “bays” of roughly 20,000 square ft each. I and a number of friends occupied one of those spaces as renters from the actual lessee. Some used it primarily as storage but for many including myself it was where we spent all of our free time pursuing mostly motorsports hobbies. There were circle track racers, road racers, autocrossers, kart racers and a boat racer. My personal loss was substantial, easily the largest of the group (I guess I’m the biggest loser) and even an ACV number will probably hit my homeowners PP limit, replacement value easily does.

The fire started in an adjacent bay and spread to our space despite brick firewalls and a sprinkler system. There’s a lot more to that including long delayed called for help by the FD but that seems immaterial to this topic. Everything in our bay is unquestionably a total loss.

 

[SteveStL]

Jack, I eagerly await any additional thoughts you may have, particularly regarding my concern for the word “occasionally”. Are you aware of precedence, legal or common practice, to suggest that continuous occupation of the space is not a problem? My landlord might be willing to say I paid rent only occasionally. (In fact I typically paid at least 6 months at a time, or more, in advance, never on a regular monthly schedule. Not that it should matter.)

 

[adjusterjack]

My original focus was on 10.h as you pointed out but I kept tripping over “occasionally” and that is not a defined word, leaving it to common usage which may not favor me. So I started leaning more on 10.c and wondering why it even exists if not for something analogous to this.

I'm not sure it makes any difference.

Coverage C - Personal Property
1. Covered Property
We cover personal property owned or used by
an "insured" while it is anywhere in the world.

Which tells me that your personal property doesn't necessarily have to be at any of the "insured locations" to be covered.

Have you filed the claim with your homeowners insurance carrier?

With what result?

The “motor vehicle” issue may not be HO-3 at all.

The provisions you quoted, where in your policy do you see them? What section of the policy?

A "motor vehicle" is not covered as personal property. The paragraphs you quoted do not appear in Section I - Property. If anything like them appear in Section II - Liability there is no need to discuss it as your liability for damage to others is not the issue here.

I did find similar wording in a State Farm sample policy. In the Definitions section:

“motor vehicle”, when used in Section II of this policy,
means:
a. a motorized land vehicle designed for travel on public
roads or subject to motor vehicle registration. A motorized
land vehicle in dead storage on an insured
location is not a motor vehicle;

Note that the definition only applies to Section II which is the liability section. Section I - Property contains the following exclusion:

any engine or motor propelled vehicle or machine,
including the parts, designed for movement on land.
We do cover those not licensed for use on public
highways which are:
(1) used solely to service the insured location; or
(2) designed for assisting the handicapped;

The loss in question took place in a large multi-purpose warehouse. The building is divided into “bays” of roughly 20,000 square ft each. I and a number of friends occupied one of those spaces as renters from the actual lessee. Some used it primarily as storage but for many including myself it was where we spent all of our free time pursuing mostly motorsports hobbies. There were circle track racers, road racers, autocrossers, kart racers and a boat racer. My personal loss was substantial, easily the largest of the group (I guess I’m the biggest loser) and even an ACV number will probably hit my homeowners PP limit, replacement value easily does.

Tools and equipment would be covered by your homeowners insurance (subject to any amount limitations). But if you are thinking that your homeowners policy is going to cover anything that even remotely resembles a motor vehicle on blocks or on wheels, it isn't.

The fire started in an adjacent bay and spread to our space despite brick firewalls and a sprinkler system.

What was the cause of the fire? Any chance that the fire was started due to negligence of the occupant or building owner?

My landlord might be willing to say I paid rent only occasionally.

That's cute. Never try to put one over on an insurance company.

 

[SteveStL]

Ahhhh... as the facts are revealed they cut both ways. I missed the key words in the definition section where it stated that the exceptions for what is a motor vehicle were only a liability issue. But similarly, because I hadn’t seen a distinction in the use of “insured location” I was applying it to all coverages, but your point is that it too is all about liability, which also makes sense. Liability is where the biggest risks are after all.

A lot of my loss is unattached spare car parts, engines, transmissions, side-draft carburetion, suspension, etc. Generally not off of or for any one specific car but collected over many years for and from the cars I’ve owned, some of it genuine factory NOS. This is the exact wording of my policy under what PP is not covered:

c. any engine-propelled or motor-propelled vehicle or machine, including parts, designed for movement on land, except as provided in Special Limits of Liability, item k.

“including parts” I want to read that as parts and accessories I may have added/attached to the car, or perhaps removed like the wheels when putting it on jack stands. But does that actually exclude all auto parts, new and used?

So now I come to the one a couple guys have been hit with:

We cover personal property usually located at an insured’s residence, other than the resi- dence premises, for up to $1,000 or 10% of the Coverage B limit, whichever is greater.

This is where it all started for me, a buddy hitting that limit on a claim, so I erroneously started focusing on the definition of an insured location. But it’s a peculiar statement that makes the most sense to me if it means that if I have a lot of stuff at a different residence, they cover only up to 10% of my policy, because really I should have that other residence insured (or explicitly added to this policy). The subsequent exception for moving from one home to another seems to support that interpretation. However, it seems to be understood by many as the off-premises limit, period. Yes, your property is covered anywhere in the world, sounds great in the sales brochure, but the fine print caps that at 10% of the policy limit. Is that what I’m really looking at? In which case nothing else matters, I’ll hit that 3x over with the first thing on my list.

 

[SteveStL]

Regarding the fire, the cause is known, careless acts on the part of a person doing some welding in another bay. Unfortunately he was not insured and most of what assets has were lost. Total damages to the warehouse and businesses in other bay is many millions so it’s not as if I was ever going to recover much from him regardless.