The Vacant Duplex Unit

No - the vacancy condition bars it.

• The dwelling forms suspend vandalism and malicious mischief coverage (along with glass breakage, sprinkler leakage and certain freezing losses) if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 60 consecutive days immediately before the loss.
• The unit was empty and unfurnished for 81 days. "Vacant" means no occupants and no furnishings - an empty unit awaiting permits fits squarely. "Unoccupied" (furnished but no one sleeping there) is the easier argument, and it is not available here.
• The exclusion applies even though the policy is the broad DP-3 form; the perils insured against are not the issue, the condition is.

What Renee should have done:

• Buy the vandalism/vacancy permit endorsement during renovation, or move to a commercial landlord form built for a vacant or undergoing-renovation building.
• Keep the unit furnished and inspected, document weekly visits, and shorten the permit delay - all help characterize the unit as unoccupied rather than vacant, but none is a sure cure for an 81-day gap.
• Note the DP-3 also limits or excludes freezing while the building is vacant or unoccupied unless heat is maintained or the water supply is shut off and drained.

No, on two independent grounds.

1. No covered loss to trigger Coverage D. Fair rental value is an indirect loss - it pays only when a covered peril makes the rented premises unfit for use. The vandalism that caused the four-month delay is excluded by the vacancy condition, so there is no covered loss to which the time element can attach.
2. No rental value was being lost. Coverage D reimburses the fair rental value of the rented portion of the premises, less expenses that do not continue. Renee had no tenant, no lease and no rental arrangement for the unit she was renovating - she was between tenants by choice. She cannot be indemnified for rent she was not receiving and had not contracted to receive.

Additional notes:

• The $52,000 Coverage D limit is not the problem; the trigger and the measure of loss are.
• Had the unit been re-rented and a covered fire made it uninhabitable, Coverage D would pay the fair rental value for the reasonable time needed to restore it, subject to the limit.
• Fair rental value is not the gross rent figure - continuing expenses that the landlord does not incur while the unit is empty are subtracted.

None - a DP-3 without the liability endorsement is property-only.

• The dwelling program is built as a property form. Personal liability (Coverage E) and medical payments to others (Coverage F) come only by endorsement to the dwelling policy, and Renee bought none.
• With no Coverage E, there is no defense obligation and no indemnity for the guest's claim. The insurer will not appoint counsel, and Renee pays any settlement or judgment herself, including defense costs.
• There is also no medical payments coverage to make a small goodwill payment and head off the claim.

What she needs:

• A dwelling policy with the Coverage E/F endorsement, or better, a commercial landlord's package or BOP once the building is a rental exposure - those forms handle the rental dwelling, loss of rents and liability in one place with realistic limits.
• Higher limits plus a personal umbrella, since a step-and-railing claim against a landlord can easily exceed a $300,000 limit, and the medical payments limit is small by design.
• The property and liability gaps here have the same root cause: a rented, vacant, under-renovation building being insured with a form designed for an owner-occupied home.