R G Invs. Holdings LLC v. American Family Ins. Co.

The insurance policy's vacancy exclusion, which excluded coverage for property damage caused by vandalism or water if the insured building was vacant for more than 60 consecutive days before the loss or damage occurred, did not apply, because the undisputed evidence showed that the building was under renovation at the time it was vandalized, and the building, therefore, was not considered vacant under the terms of the exclusion.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

RG Investments Holdings, LLC sued American Family Insurance Company, seeking insurance payments and bad faith penalties for American Family’s refusal to pay claims for losses to certain residential apartment buildings caused by vandalism and water damage. Following discovery, RG Investments moved for partial summary judgment on its claim related to one of the vandalized buildings Building S and for summary judgment on American Family’s related defenses, including a defense based on the insurance policy’s vacancy exclusion. Concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed on the claim and defenses pertaining to Building S, the trial court denied RG’s motion for partial summary judgment and its subsequent motion for reconsideration. RG Investments later moved for partial summary judgment on its claim related to the building that had sustained water damage Building T, and American Family cross-moved for summary judgment on the ground that the claim was barred by the policy’s vacancy exclusion. The trial court denied RG Investment’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted American Family’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the water-damage claim pertaining to Building T.

On appeal, RG Investments challenges these summary judgment rulings by the trial court. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the uncontroverted evidence of record showed that Building S was under renovation at the time it was vandalized, and that, as a result, the insurance policy’s vacancy exclusion did not bar coverage of the vandalism loss to that building. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to RG Investments on American Family’s vacancy-exclusion defense to that specific claim.1 We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment rulings in all other respects.

R G Invs. Holdings LLC v. American Family Ins. Co.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report