Whether the property purchased by the O'Briens was "vacant" under the terms of the insurance policy when water damage occurred.
If the property was "vacant," whether TD Insurance's representative, Ms. Ebotoke, was negligent in failing to properly communicate coverage exclusions and place the correct coverage.
Background:
The O'Briens purchased a second home and intended to insure it under their existing policy with Security National.
On January 1, 2019, significant water damage occurred at the new property.
Security National denied the claim, citing a policy exclusion for water damage when the property is "vacant."
The O'Briens argued the property was not vacant and, alternatively, that any coverage gap was due to negligence by the insurance agent.
Court Findings:
The policy defined "vacant" to mean no occupants living in the house, irrespective of daily checks or furnishings present.
There was a dispute whether the O'Briens were adequately informed about the vacancy clause.
Evidence included call transcripts and affidavits from the O'Briens and TD Insurance representatives, demonstrating misunderstandings about coverage terms and the property’s occupancy status.
Conclusion:
The Application is granted. The Applicants are entitled to judgment against the Respondents in the amount of $225,145.71, plus pre-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements.
