There is a also concurrent work of various maintenance people and other contractors in an out of the building at various times around that, as well as showings of the property as it was intended for rent (4 open houses in the 30 day prior period).

I feel it should be covered as the core of the vacancy clause is about an abandonment hazard, and I believe it's clear the property is not abandoned.

I also feel the vacancy clause and "building under construction" should easily include work on an addition to an existing structure (to say nothing about renovation).

Could you give me your opinion on the matter? Thank you!

New Jersey Subscriber

Unfortunately, a house being worked on is not the same as a house being lived in, and a property under construction is different than a property under renovation. The policy language clearly states that a property being constructed is not considered vacant, but in your case the property is already constructed, there's just work being done. It's completely different to put up walls and a roof than it is to rebuild the porch on an existing completed dwelling. Workmen leave at the end of the day and may or may not be around on weekends – a showing takes half an hour to an hour – the property is unoccupied the rest of the time. However, there's a significant difference between a property being vacant and unoccupied – was the house furnished? Were appliances, beds, furniture in the dwelling, could it have been lived in? If so, then it wasn't vacant, just unoccupied, and then the vacancy exclusion would not apply. The details will make all the difference here.