For homeowners coverage, it’s when you actually live in it

 What stands out here is that the people occupying the house—

the sons and the grandchildren—would all have qualified as

insureds under the policy if the named insured had lived there.

By Joseph S. Harrington, CPCU

As disputes over residency requirements go, Boniface Jean’s case seemed pretty straightforward. The Florida man admitted he never lived in the dwelling insured under his  name. So, it should be no surprise that coverage was denied for a loss under a standard homeowners provision that restricts coverage to the location “where you reside.”

Still, his claim made its way to a state appellate court due to one fact: The insurer had continued to collect premium on the policy, even after it knew the named insured was not residing there. Given that, Jean claimed that the insurer had effectively waived the residency requirement, and the trial court agreed.

The appeals court reversed the lower court ruling in November 2025, agreeing with the insurer that the residency requirement was an essential condition of coverage that could not be waived.[1] That begs the question of why an insurer could collect premium on a policy the insurer knew would provide no coverage.

Offspring not insured

Shortly after the Florida ruling, a U.S. appeals court in Minnesota also upheld a denial of coverage over non-residency.[2]

In the Minnesota case, a couple purchased a home in 2010 and lived there with their two sons. They  purchased a homeowners policy in 2015 that was renewed and in effect in 2021 when a fire occurred, damaging the dwelling, garage, and personal property.

The named insured had moved out of state by the time of the fire, but his two children and grandchildren still lived there, and he kept personal property at the insured location. Those circumstances didn’t help him, however. Since the named insured was not residing in the home, coverage for the fire loss was denied; the denial was upheld at the lower court and appellate level.

What stands out here is that the people occupying the house—the sons and the grandchildren—would all have qualified as insureds under the policy if the named insured had lived there. Their personal property would have been covered, along with the dwelling, garage, and the named insured’s personal property. There was no apparent expansion or change of the risk here. It was not as if the house was left vacant or rented out to strangers.

Carrier concerns

As with most case law involving interpretations of state statutes, it’s hard to tell whether or where rulings indicate a trend.

Speaking from a carrier point of view, attorney Adam Masef fears that “there is a trend developing with courts ignoring the best evidence of residency—the insured’s own admission that the property was not [his or] her ‘home’ or that [he or] she did not ‘live’ there.”[3] (emphasis added)

Based himself in Philadelphia, Masef cites two Pennsylvania cases. In one case, a policyholder continued to live in an apartment with her family while renovating a newly acquired home nearby. In the other case, the policyholder had moved out of a home but still regarded it as a  “family home” she frequented, where she still had her “own room” and furnishings, and where her children and grandchildren lived.

In each situation, the insured dwelling suffered a fire loss and the insurer denied coverage based on the fact the named insured did not reside at the location. To Masef’s dismay, courts in both cases found that the policyholder’s connections to the insured dwellings could be construed as “residing” there.

Regarding one of the rulings, he laments that “the court might have decided this case based on form over substance.” Instead of determining residency “mechanically” by “keeping a tally on a scorecard” of indicators, Masef says “the overarching theme should be whether the person actually lived at the home.” And the best indication of that, he says, is whether the person says he or she lives there.

Policyholders and their representatives may want to turn Masef’s reasoning on its head. They are more likely to consider an insured’s connection to dwelling, demonstrated through daily activities, as the “substance,” and the plain reading of a paid-up policy as the form.

As it is, Masef may have reason to breathe easier, as some courts of late seem intent on strictly enforcing the homeowners residency requirement. Advise your clients accordingly.

[1] Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Boniface Jean, — So.3d —-, 2025 WL 3222483 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 19, 2025)

[2] Pour v. Liberty Mutual Personal Ins. Co., No. 24-1824, 2025 WL 3440993 (8th Cir. Dec. 1, 2025)

[3] Adam Masef, “Home Again, Home Again, Jiggity Jig – Are Pennsylvania Courts Misconstruing the Residency Requirement?,” Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP,  June 2022; accessed at https://www.butler.legal/home-again-home-again-jiggity-jig-are-pennsylvania-courts-misconstruing-the-residency-requirement/

The author

Joseph S. Harrington, CPCU, is an independent business writer specializing in property and casualty insurance coverages and operations. For 21 years, Joe was the communications director for the American Association of Insurance Services (AAIS), a P&C advisory organization. Prior to that, Joe worked in journalism and as a reporter and editor in financial services.