| Legal ForumsRegisterSign inBankruptcyBusinessCriminalEmploymentFamilyImmigrationReal EstateMore... | ChatUpcomingArchiveHelpAsk a LawyerToday's Q&AAsk a QuestionAsk a Lawyer ArchiveTopic Schedule |
| Legal Forms & DocumentsState Law and AgenciesU.S. ConstitutionFederal Courts & LawsU.S. Small Claims CourtFederal Government AgenciesLegal DictionaryFree Case Law Research |
Homeowners insurance policies contain a clause titled “Vacancy” or some variation thereof. In fact, the clause is included in Oklahoma’s Standard Fire Insurance Policy, 36 O.S. _ 4803.
The effect of the clause is to avoid coverage for losses incurred during periods where the property is vacant or, under some policies, unoccupied. As with most property insurance policies, Oklahoma’s standard policy provides that coverage will not be lost until the property is “vacant or unoccupied” in excess of 60 consecutive days.
Perhaps used interchangeably by some, the terms “vacancy” and “unoccupied” have been given different meanings across the nation, although it does not appear Oklahoma courts have directly addressed the issue.
Across the nation, “vacancy” is generally understood to mean the property is “empty or devoid of goods and personal property of the insured.” Couch on Insurance, _ 94:112. Although property “need not be totally free of any fixtures and furnishings” to be vacant, “the [state] of the structure’s interior, combined with surrounding circumstances, [must] indicate that the premises are not being used in any regular manner.” Id. _ 94:132.
On the other hand, “unoccupied” has been defined as the “absence of the insured or other persons from the premises.” Id. _ 94:112. Specifically, “a dwelling house is ‘unoccupied’ when it is not used as a residence—when it is no longer used for the accustomed and ordinary purposes of a dwelling or place of abode.” Id. _ 94:127.
Although it does not appear the Oklahoma Supreme Court has directly addressed the difference between “vacant” and “unoccupied”, the state’s highest court has held that temporary absence from one’s home is not sufficient to fall within the vacancy clause.
In Monarch Ins. Co. of Ohio v. Rippy, 369 P.2d 622 (Okla. 1962), the Supreme Court held that an insured may be “temporarily absent from their home for a reasonable length of time without their home becoming ‘unoccupied’ as [the] term is used in reference to insurance.” Id. at 625.
Interestingly, the Rippys had taken a three-month vacation to Florida (November 1958 until February 1959) only to return to a home damaged after frozen pipes burst.
Disclaimer: The information provided on Lawyers.com is not legal advice, Lawyers.com is not a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on Lawyers.com are paid attorney advertisements and do not in any way constitute a referral or endorsement by Lawyers.com or any approved or authorized lawyer referral service. Your access to and use of this site is subject to additional Terms and Conditions.

