Whatever your personal choice of holiday meal, the air will soonbe filled with turkey jokes, turkey recipes and a last-minutePresidential pardon, all for a bird that can't fly.

Turkeys aren't the only things that can't fly: Once they areshoved out of ISO's headquarters into the real world, someinsurance turkeys don't fly, either.

One in particular resonates this month. Here is the pertinentform language from ISO HO 00 03 15 11:

Section I—Property Coverages

A. Coverage A—Dwelling

1. We cover:

   |

   a. The dwelling on the “residence premises”shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to thedwelling.

Consider the following claim, summarized from the facts of manycases:

Mom and Dad own a home. They have put down a substantial paymentto procure space in a retirement community with a fixed “move-in”date. With plans to recover the payment via the sale proceeds oftheir current home, they contract with a real estate agent. Move-intime arrives, and still no sale. Adult daughter tells parents torelocate; she'll move into the house to keep it maintained andoccupied until it sells.

A major fire severely damages the home. Adequate homeownerinsurance in the name of Mom and Dad is in force, automaticallyrenewed annually via direct bill/escrow.

The carrier denies the claim. The agent assures the daughter andparents there must be a simple misunderstanding over vacancy andunoccupancy. As a resident relative, the daughter is even aninsured under the policy.

Unfortunately, the form language sides with the carrier. Thecarrier denies the claim under a policy provision, clear but seldomnoticed once an agent leaves licensing school. Note the requirementfor determining if a particular dwelling falls under coverage A: Itmust be located on the “residence premises,” which ISO defines as“The one-family dwelling where you reside” (emphasis mine). Bypoint:

1. To be covered, dwelling must be on “residence premises.”

2. “Residence premises” is where “you” reside.

3. “You” includes named insured and resident spouse only.

4. Named insured on homeowners' policy is Mom and Dad; does notinclude daughter.

5. Mom and Dad reside at a retirement community, not in the damageddwelling.

6. Because “you” does not reside at this specific dwelling, it isnot a “residence premises” and does not fall under Coverage A.

7. Any claim is validly denied under this policy.

One hopes ISO will throw out this language. This is one turkeythat needs to be stuffed.

Courts on Dwelling Property Policies

My friend Bill Wilson, head guru of the IIABA VirtualUniversity, has documented court cases that have come down squarelyon the carrier side in similar cases. Even if courts don't favorcertain policy provisions, they are reluctant to overturn clearwording. There have been courts who ruled differently, on an“innocent insured” rationale. But if it were that clear that oneset of courts is wrong while the others are right, I doubt Billwould have named this specific issue to be one of the top priorityISO forms changes needed.