Q

Our insured has an HO-3 (1984 edition) with the HO 70, Additional Residence Rented to Others, endorsement attached to extend liability and medical payments coverage to a two-family rental dwelling.

Recently, one of the tenants was voluntarily painting the exterior of the dwelling for the insured. He fell from a ladder and was injured. We submitted the tenant's medical bills to the homeowners insurer, who has denied the claim. We thought that this was the reason the insured purchased the endorsement.

May we have your opinion?

New Jersey Subscriber

A

The HO 70 amends the HO-3 definition of “insured location” to include the locations indicated on the form. However, the medical payments section of the HO-3 excludes coverage for “any person, other than a 'residence employee' of an 'insured' regularly residing on any part of the 'insured location.'”

Since the injured man was “voluntarily” painting the dwelling, it is doubtful that he could be classified as a “residence employee.” Because this dwelling is now an “insured location” under the HO-3 and the injured man regularly resides on the insured location, there is no medical payments coverage for his injuries.

The HO 70 is intended to pick up the incidental exposure of visitors to the insured location. The exposure of a full-time resident is not contemplated in the minimal premium paid for this coverage.