Premium Only Content

Intent to Move is not a Residence
Residence Premises Requires the Insured to Live in Residence
Post 4944
In Paul Villalobos v. Â Clear Blue Insurance Company, No. 24-20125, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (December 10, 2024) the district court dismissed Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Villalobos's breach of contract claim following a coverage dispute between himself and his insurer, Clear Blue Insurance Company, because he admitted he did not live in the insured premises.
FACTS
Villalobos is named on a Clear Blue homeowners' policy, which provides coverage for property located at 7503 Muirwood Lane in Houston, Texas (the "Property"). The policy's "Property Coverages" section states in pertinent part: "We cover . . . [t]he dwelling on the 'residence premises' shown in the Declarations." The policy defines "residence premises," also in pertinent part, as "[t]he one-family dwelling where you reside . . . on the inception date of the policy period shown in the Declarations." The Declarations page lists Villalobos as the insured, his mailing address as the Property, and the inception date as September 21, 2021.
In mid-November 2021, Villalobos reported to Clear Blue that wind and hail had damaged the Property's roof earlier that month. Clear Blue denied coverage after Villalobos admitted he lived in Colorado and had never resided at the Property.
Villalobos sued Clear Blue, alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Insurance Code, fraud, and ongoing conspiracy to commit illegal acts.
ANALYSIS
During his deposition, Villalobos testified that he lived in Colorado for over nine years and did not reside at the Property when the Clear Blue policy went into effect. Clear Blue moved for summary judgment on Villalobos's claims, arguing there was no insurance coverage for Villalobos's property damage as a matter of law.
Applying Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit has previously determined that an identical residence requirement in a homeowners' insurance policy required "more than purchasing a home or intending to move into it." GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co. v. Joachin, 964 F.3d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 2020).
Applying Joachin the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Property did not satisfy the policy's residence requirement and was not a covered "residence premises" because:
it is undisputed that Villalobos did not reside on the Property on the inception date of the Clear Blue policy; and
Villalobos's only material argument on appeal is that he intended to move onto the Property.
Joachin held that "intending to move" is not enough. The Fifth Circuit concluded that there is no coverage under the policy. Accordingly, Villalobos's breach of contract claim failed and the USDC's judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
That something as obvious as a home in Texas cannot be the residence premises of a person who lives full time in Colorado. Insurers issue property insurance policies providing coverage similar to a homeowners policy to the owner of a rental property while a homeowners policy limits coverage to the person who actually resides at the property. That this case went to the Fifth Circuit was the waste of Plaintiff's time and money, the waste of the time of the trial court, and the waste of the time of the Fifth Circuit who rendered a concise and clear opinion. A less kind judge or appellate court would have imposed sanctions on the party plaintiff and his counsel.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
-
6:55
Insurance Law
11 hours agoMisrepresentation Claim Requires Production of Representation
8 -
1:12:00
The Car Guy Online
13 hours ago $0.80 earnedAutomakers EXPOSED, Whistleblowers SILENCED! NextGen Engineer Speaks Out!
4.45K2 -
1:17
The Lou Holtz Show
13 hours agoThe Lou Holtz Show S2 EP16 | Hugh Freeze on Faith, Football & Restoring American Values #podcast
3K2 -
LIVE
BEK TV
22 hours agoTrent Loos in the Morning - 8/22/2025
230 watching -
LIVE
The Bubba Army
21 hours agoHogan's Death: Bubba Called it FIRST AGAIN! - Bubba the Love Sponge® Show | 8/22/25
3,259 watching -
38:40
ZeeeMedia
16 hours agoMax Pace’s Crypto Revolution Story: Four Strategies to Win | Daily Pulse Ep 93
22K14 -
2:16:46
"What Is Money?" Show
2 days agoBitcoin vs War, Violence, & Corruption w/ Gary Mahmoud
18.6K -
28:33
DeVory Darkins
1 day ago $9.57 earnedNewsom suffers stunning EMBARRASSMENT as MAJOR retailer makes devastating announcement
27.5K62 -
32:46
Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell
2 days agoInside Look at Strategy’s $70+ Billion Bitcoin Treasury
19.7K1 -
8:21
MattMorseTV
17 hours ago $9.01 earnedTrump just SCORED a $500,000,000 LEGAL WIN.
118K44