Question: We have several clients in our agency who ice-fish during the winter, and have fishing huts that they store on their property the rest of the year. Often the huts have wheels on them so they can be towed out onto a lake.
Now, one of our insurers is stating that these huts, because they have wheels and can be towed by a vehicle, are in fact trailers. This means that coverage is limited under the standard homeowners policy to $1,000 or $1,500. Further, there is no theft coverage for trailers away from the residence premises. Some of these huts can cost well over $10,000.
We disagree with the insurer's interpretation. Can you help us?
— Minnesota Subscriber
Answer: We don't see an ice fishing hut as being a trailer. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition) defines a "trailer" as "a vehicle for transporting something." It is also defined as "a vehicle designed to serve wherever parked as a temporary dwelling or place of business."
Now, although an ice fishing hut may come close to being a dwelling, its sole purpose is to shelter fishermen from the elements while engaging in the sport of ice fishing. Few people would mistake the hut for a place in which to live. And, certainly, while being towed to a lake the ice hut may contain fishing and camping gear, but that does not cause an ice hut to fall within the description of a "vehicle for transporting something."
The personal auto policy (PAP) definition of "trailer" is "a vehicle designed to be pulled by a …private passenger auto… or pickup or van." Looking at the PAP definition, it is clear that although a hut may be pulled by an auto or truck, it is not designed to be pulled; it is designed to be a fishing hut.
A word of caution, however: Because a fishing hut is personal property it is subject to the homeowners perils applying to personal property. And, if the cost of these is as great as you say, you may wish to make sure clients have enough coverage C to cover both the hut and other personal property in event of a total loss.
Bears are not likley to be considered a "vermin" exclusion. A loss caused by a bear should be covered on most homeowners' policies. (Photo: iStock)
Question: If a bear damages the siding on the insured's garage, would this be covered under the homeowner's policy? Would the bear be considered a vermin?
— Indiana Subscriber
Answer: It depends on what policy form you're using. The ISO HO 00 03 10 00 excludes birds, vermin, rodents, and insects. Exclusions are to be read narrowly, and Merriam Webster online defines "vermin" as "a: small, common, harmful, or objectionable animals (as lice or fleas) that are difficult to control; b: birds and mammals that prey on game; c: animals that at a particular time and place compete (as for food) with humans or domestic animals."
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary considers "vermin" as "small animals and insects that can be harmful and difficult to control when they appear in large numbers."
Keeping the exclusion for vermin in context with the rest of the exclusion, which is birds, rodents, and insects, bears are nothing like any of those categories, so we would not consider bears to be vermin. The loss should be covered.
Analysis brought to you by the experts at FC&S Online, the unquestioned authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry. To find out more—or to have YOUR coverage question answered—visit www.nationalunderwriter.com/FCS.
© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.