Dean v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that the term "residence premises" in the homeowners’ insurance policy was ambiguous under the circumstances, where the insureds owned the property, regularly worked there, occasionally slept there, and intended to move in after completing major repairs. The ambiguity and factual issues concerning residency and occupancy precluded summary judgment for the insurer.

Holdings

1. The term "residence premises" was ambiguous under the circumstances because the policy defined it as the dwelling "where you reside," did not define "reside," and did not clearly resolve whether the insured's substantial occupancy during repairs satisfied the coverage requirement.
2. Summary judgment was inappropriate because issues of fact remained as to whether Douglas Dean's daily presence in the house, together with his intent to move in with his family, satisfied the policy's residence-premises requirement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the term "residence premises" in the homeowners insurance policy was ambiguous where the insured owned the property, regularly occupied it while making major repairs, and intended eventually to move in.
2. Whether disputed facts concerning the insured's presence, occupancy, and intent precluded summary judgment on coverage.

Disposition

affirmed