The policyholder rented a condominium unit. Upon vacancy it was discovered appliances were stolen. The policyholder does not reside within the risk premises. The policy is unendorsed leaving the only applicable coverage form as the HO 00 06 (10/00). Peril 9. Theft provides theft coverage. However, 9 b. notes "This peril does does not include loss caused by theft (3) From that part of a "residence premises" rented by an "insured" to someone other than another "insured" or…
In this case the policyholder would fall under the definition of an insured. The tenant would not fall under that definition. "Risk premises" means the unit where you reside shown as the "residece premises" in the Declaration. The covered location on the policy is the condominium unit where the theft occurred. The insured does not live in the risk premises.
We are seeking an opinion on whether coverage would exist for theft. Our tenataive position is that coverage does not exist.
New Jersey Subscriber
You are correct in your analysis of the situation. Without the HO 17 33 Unit-Owners Rental to Others endorsement, the exclusion on the HO 00 06 for theft of property from a "rented premises" rented by the insured to someone other than an insured applies. Because theft is a common hazard when the insured doesn't live at a property that he is renting out, theft is often excluded unless an additional premium is charged. Your insured's situation is proof of that theory. There is no coverage for the theft of the appliances in your situation.