Langill v. Vermont Mutual Insurance
2001 WL 1220734, 268 F.3d 46, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22468 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Massachusetts law, a residential property is considered 'vacant' for the purposes of a statutorily required insurance policy exclusion if it is not being used as a human habitation, even if the owner's agent makes regular, brief visits for renovation and occasional personal use. The critical factor is the sustained presence of a resident, not sporadic activity on the premises.
Facts:
- Grace Langill owned a rental dwelling at 158 Mansfield Avenue, located near her own residence.
- In February 1999, tenants who had resided in the property for twelve years moved out, leaving it in a state of wear and tear.
- Following the tenants' departure, Langill's husband began refurbishing the house, working there for one to two hours each day.
- The husband kept tools, a ladder, two chairs, and a mattress set in the house, maintained utilities, and kept the doors locked.
- The husband also made occasional visits at night to smoke or meet friends and stayed overnight on one occasion after an argument with his wife.
- On May 5, 1999, more than sixty consecutive days after the tenants moved out, a fire, later determined to be arson, severely damaged the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Grace Langill's claim for fire damage was denied by her insurer, Vermont Mutual Insurance Co., which invoked the policy's vacancy exclusion clause.
- Langill sued Vermont Mutual in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a federal trial court.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Vermont Mutual.
- Langill, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the regular, daily presence of a homeowner's husband for several hours of renovation work, along with occasional personal visits, prevent a residential property from being considered 'vacant' under a fire insurance policy's sixty-day vacancy exclusion clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes, such activity does not prevent a property from being considered vacant. For a residential dwelling, the central theme of occupancy is its use as a human habitation, which requires the sustained presence of a resident, particularly during the hours of darkness, to guard against hazards like arson and vandalism. The brief, daily renovation activities and random evening visits by Langill's husband did not approximate an inhabited abode or provide effective protection, thus rendering the property 'vacant' under the policy's plain meaning and underlying purpose.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the meaning of 'vacancy' in a residential insurance context under Massachusetts law, emphasizing a bright-line rule over a flexible, multi-factor approach. By prioritizing predictability, the court establishes that for a dwelling, the key determinant is whether someone is residing in the property, not merely present. This ruling reinforces the policy rationale behind vacancy exclusions—the increased risk of fire and vandalism in unattended properties—and cautions property owners that renovation activities alone are insufficient to maintain coverage under a standard dwelling policy.
