top of page


Planning To Live At Premises Not Sufficient To Make Property “Residence Premises”

August 29, 2011

Share to:

In Tower Insurance Company v. Khan, the Supreme Court, New York County held that Tower did not owe defense or indemnity to a property owner that did not live at the premises. Tower issued a homeowner’s policy to Khan that only provided coverage to a specific insured location, the “residence premises,” defined as the dwelling where the insured resides. The underlying plaintiff was injured while performing renovations at the property, and commenced an action against the insured. Tower denied coverage because the insured did not reside at the premises.
The insured submitted an affidavit in opposition to Tower’s summary judgment motion indicating that she intended to reside in the property after the renovations were complete. The court therefore held that, based upon the insured’s own affidavit, the property was not a residence premises, and thus Tower did not have an obligation to defend of indemnify the insured.
If you would like additional information regarding this post, please contact David Tavella at <a href=""></a>.
<a href=""></a>


bottom of page