My client’s parents own a home near Orlando.  The parents moved to a new home at the beach, and left their grown son to live in their Orlando area home.  There was a fire at the Orlando area home which destroyed the home, and the son’s personal property. 

The property insurer agreed to pay for the damage to the home itself, but denied the claim for the son’s personal property.  The insurance company claims that the son is not entitled to any coverage under the policy because he is not an "insured’ under the policy.

The policy defines "Insured" as follows:  

You [meaning the named insured – parents] and residents of your household who are: (1) Your relatives….

According to the insurance company, because the parents moved out of the Orlando area home, that house is no longer their "household."  However, elsewhere in the policy, the insurer defines "residence premises" as the one family dwelling where the named insureds reside.  Thus, household and "residence premises" are not the same thing.  Also, case law holds that while a named insured may only have one "residence premises," the named insured may have multiple "households." 

As with most of my insurance cases, if I win, the insurance company will pay my hourly fees and costs, and if I lose, I’ll work for free.  There are no out-of-pocket fees or costs for my client.