Insurance — homeowners policies — occupation

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Insurance — homeowners policies — occupation

Policyholders occupied their residence within the meaning of sec.632.05(2), even though they were renovating it, but had never slept in the house.

“It is undisputed that the Johnsons ‘were doing construction [on the Neshkoro house] in order to move into the premises,’ and the Johnsons stated that they had been ‘on the Property on an almost [] daily basis’ while they were ‘doing construction.’ Mt. Morris focused on the fact that the Johnsons had never spent the night sleeping in the house, which both parties also stipulated, to support its argument that the house was not occupied. However, as we have explained, whether or not a person ever slept in a house is not dispositive of whether they occupied it. See id., ¶43.”

“It would be unreasonable to conclude that a dwelling ceases to be occupied as a dwelling if the people living there temporarily vacate the dwelling for renovations, any more than if they simply go on an extended vacation. And, we discern no reason why the result should be different if a policyholder purchases property and engages in some renovations before moving in.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP2468 Johnson v. Mt. Morris Mut. Ins. Co.

Dist. IV, Marquette County, Wright, J., Sherman, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Baxter, James A., Milwaukee; Raines, Douglas M., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Culp, Peter J., Oshkosh