Premium Only Content
Second Attempt at Same Argument Fails
Insured Must Reside at Dwelling for Homeowners Policy Coverage to Apply
Plaintiff alleged that, on October 28, 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to his property. Plaintiff alleged that Southern conducted an inspection which constituted “satisfactory proof of loss,” but that Southern failed to adjust the claim or provide compensation to Plaintiff following the inspection. Plaintiff alleged that he was forced to hire his own experts, and repair estimates.
In Todd M. Korbel v. Republic Fire And Casualty Insurance Company And Southern Underwriters Insurance Company, No. 2:21-CV-2214, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (May 31, 2023)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff sued seeking damages. Southern generally denied the allegations and asserted a number of affirmative defenses including that Plaintiff did not “reside” at the Property, and that he is therefore not entitled to coverage under the Policy.
APPLICABLE LAW
Residence under the Policy
The plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning of the word “reside” requires more than purchasing a home or intending to move into it. Plaintiff argued that he received mail, including correspondence from Southern, at the Property, that he paid water and electric bills for the Property in his name, that he was at the Property every day performing work or checking on the Property, that he had stored some belongings at the Property, and that he had a homestead exemption on the Property.
As the Fifth Circuit has previously explained to Plaintiff himself in a previous lawsuit, this evidence is insufficient to create an issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff resided in or at the Property. In an earlier case Plaintiff brought similar claims for damages and statutory bad faith penalties under Louisiana law after a house that he had purchased, but not moved into, was damaged during Hurricane Katrina. The insurer raised the same lack of coverage defense to Plaintiff's claims for certain damages, arguing that Plaintiff did not reside at the property as was required under the insurance coverage contract.
Although Korbel clearly spent a great deal of time working on the house and intended it to be his residence in the future, this evidence was insufficient to establish residence. Given that Plaintiff kept only a minimal amount of furniture there and did not engage in leisure activities at the house, but rather went to the Property to work on or check on the house the facts establish he did not reside there.
In fact, Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he did not move into the Property but was still living at another location at the time the Property was impacted by Hurricane Zeta. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not ‘reside' at the Property, and is not entitled to coverage under the Policy.
ZALMA OPINION
Homeowners policies require that the insured reside at the premises that is the subject of the policy. Since the evidence established Korbel did not reside at the premises but only visited for purposes other than residence and it was in no condition to live in, he did not meet the requirement of residence as he did not in a previous case he brought to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He could have purchased a policy for a property in the course of construction but did not. Once he lost with the same argument it was unwise to make the same losing argument to the to the USDC that had failed on an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
-
8:57
Barry Zalma, Inc. on Insurance Law
1 year agoNo Coverage for Benefits no Right to Bad Faith Damages
216 -
1:57:43
Steven Crowder
4 hours agoFailed Hit Job: Another Trump Media Hoax Exposed
274K240 -
56:36
The Rubin Report
3 hours agoFox Hosts Stunned by Piers Morgan’s Dark Prediction for NYC Under Zohran Mamdan
25.4K39 -
LIVE
XDDX_HiTower
2 hours ago $0.61 earnedGRAY ZONE DEVLOG FOR .3.5 UPDATE!!! [RGMT CONTENT Mgr. | RGMT GL | GZW CL]
87 watching -
LIVE
LFA TV
17 hours agoLIVE & BREAKING NEWS! | TUESDAY 11/4/25
2,424 watching -
DVR
The Shannon Joy Show
3 hours agoICE Brutality In Evanston, Illinois Sparks New Outrage * GOP Seeks New FISA Re-Authorization * Are Tucker Carlson & Nick Fuentes Feds?
15.4K4 -
1:41:24
The Mel K Show
3 hours agoA Republic if You Can Keep It-Americans Must Choose 11-04-25
20.8K1 -
35:49
Grant Stinchfield
2 hours ago $0.98 earnedThe Mind Meltdown: Are COVID Shots Fueling America’s Cognitive Collapse?
13.5K3 -
1:00:46
VINCE
5 hours agoThe Proof Is In The Emails | Episode 161 - 11/04/25
171K168 -
2:12:22
Benny Johnson
4 hours ago🚨Trump Releases ALL Evidence Against James Comey in Nuclear Legal BOMBSHELL! It's DARK, US in SHOCK
96.4K41