Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

July 1, 2011

Insureds Must Reside in Residence Premises or Lose Coverage Altogether

In Vela vs. Tower Insurance Company of New York, A.D.2d Dep't, April 26, 2011, the Second Department granted summary judgment to the insurer based upon the named insured's non-residency at the insured premises.

Tower Insurance issued a homeowner's insurance policy to Vela ("plaintiff") for residential property she purchased in 2006. The policy contained a "residence premises" provision pursuant to which coverage was provided for a one or two-family dwelling "where you [meaning the insured] reside and which is shown as the residence premises in the Declarations."

Following water damage to the premises of approximately $228,000, Tower disclaimed coverage on the ground that its insured, the plaintiff, never resided at the premises.

Plaintiff commenced suit, and Tower moved for summary judgment. The lower court denied the motion, and Tower appealed. The Second Department reversed. The Court observed that the standard for determining residency requires more than a temporary or physical presence and requires a degree of permanence and intent to remain. The Court held:

Tower demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, the policy and its declaration page indicating that 'residence premises' were the premises at issue herein, along with the plaintiff's policy application in which she asserted that the premises were owner-occupied, and her deposition testimony that the premises had been unoccupied since the closing and that, when the water damage occurred, she, her husband and their children were living at another property in Queens County, which was owned by her husband.

The Court held that the policy provision was unambiguous. Significantly, the Court noted that affidavits by the plaintiff and her husband stating that they slept at the premises many nights while making repairs "must be viewed as presenting a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of the plaintiff's earlier admission in her deposition testimony that the premises were unoccupied at all times from the date of the closing to the date of the loss (see Buziashvili v. Ryan, 264 A.D.2d 797, 798)."

This is a strict interpretation of the residence premises language of the policy in conjunction with the representations made by the insured in the application for coverage.

If you require further information regarding the information presented in this Legal Alert and its impact on your organization, please contact any of the members of the Practice Area.


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


US Supreme Court Shrinks Federal Authority Under the Clean Water Act


Supreme Court Strikes Down Taxing Authorities' Right to Retain Surplus Monies in "Strict Foreclosures"


Appellate Division, Third Department, Denies Appeal and Upholds Office of Renewable Energy Siting Regulations


NYS Public Service Commission Formally Initiates Proceeding to Establish What Constitutes "Zero Emission" Under the CLCPA


NYS Appellate Court Dismisses Common Law Claims Against Contractor for Injuries Sustained by "Special Employee"


Child Victim Act Complaint Dismissed for Failure to Sufficiently Allege Special Duty

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out