Springman v. Pacific Ins. Co. of New York

3 Citing cases

  1. Hoff v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty

    398 N.W.2d 123 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 4 times
    In Hoff, summary judgment was affirmed in favor of the insurer because it was undisputed that the insured was residing in his primary residence at the time of the theft.

    Although there is no North Dakota case law on point, we find persuasive the opinions from other jurisdictions which have construed insurance policies with exclusionary clauses worded almost identically to the one interpreted in this case. See, e.g., Foster v. Blue Ridge Insurance Co., 377 So.2d 500 (La.Ct.App. 1979) (insured's claim permitted because it was determined that he was temporarily residing at the camp when the theft occurred); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Gordon, 364 So.2d 44 (Fla.App. 1978) (jury verdict reversed since insured was not residing at the premises when the theft occurred); Heuer v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., 127 N.J. Super. 80, 316 A.2d 74 (1974) (claim for loss denied because insured was not residing in the domicile at the time of the theft); Springman v. Pacific Insurance Company of New York, 5 Ill. App.3d 604, 283 N.E.2d 716 (1972) (trial court verdict reversed because the insureds were not temporarily residing at a seasonal dwelling when the thefts occurred); Reiner v. St. Paul Fire Marine Insurance Co., 106 Ill. App.2d 210, 245 N.E.2d 655 (1969) (insured student's loss not covered since insured had moved home from college for the summer and was no longer residing in her college apartment when her property was taken); Vanguard Insurance Co. v. Stanfield, 442 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969) (bench verdict for insured reversed because insured not temporarily residing in premises when theft took place); Bryan v. Granite State Insurance Co., 185 So.2d 310 (La.Ct.App. 1966) (insureds denied coverage for items taken from an apartment since they were not temporarily residing in the apartment at the time it was burglarized); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Walker, 111 Ga. App. 120, 140 S.E.2d 910 (1965) (court held that a house trailer belonging to insured but not identified in the insurance policy is a dwelling excluded fro

  2. Sanders v. Insurance Co.

    202 S.E.2d 477 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 2 times
    In Sanders v. Insurance Co., 20 N.C.App. 691, 202 S.E.2d 477 (1974), the insured maintained a home in Winston-Salem where his family lived.

    Actual physical presence was unnecessary, but coverage was denied where the insured was at his regular home at the time the theft occurred. Of similar import are the cases of Reiner v. Insurance Co., 106 Ill. App.2d 210, 245 N.E.2d 655 (1969), and Springman v. Insurance Co., 5 Ill. App.3d 604, 283 N.E.2d 716 (1972). In the Reiner case, the plaintiff was a college student who had leased an apartment for 12 months.

  3. Heuer v. N.J. Manufacturers Ins. Co.

    127 N.J. Super. 80 (N.J. Super. 1974)   Cited 2 times
    In Heuer v. N.J. Manufacturers Ins. Co., 127 N.J.Super. 80, 316 A.2d 74 (1974), the theft was from a cottage used as a summer home which the insured occasionally occupied on winter weekends.

    We agree with the Louisiana Court that the proper construction of the "off premises" exclusion clause is that the insured must temporarily reside in the secondary residence in order to be covered by the homeowners policy insuring the principal residence. To this effect see also Chalmers v. Oregon Automobile Ins. Co., 500 P.2d 258 (Ore.Sup.Ct. 1972); Springman v. Pacific Ins. Co. of New York, 5 Ill.App.3d 604, 283 N.E.2d 716 (App.Ct. 1972), and Vanguard Ins. Co. v. Stanfield, 442 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969). The facts clearly indicate that plaintiff's actions do not bring him within the ambit of protection provided by the policy from thefts from a location wherein he could be said to be "temporarily residing."