An Ohio appeals court reversed a ruling in favor of an insurer after finding the property was not vacant under the policy's definition. The case is Williamson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2026-Ohio-2530 (Ct. App. 2026).
Background
Tyrone Williamson owned a duplex in Dayton, Ohio, which he operated as two separate rental units. In February 2024, the duplex was vandalized, causing damage to doors and windows in both units and resulting in the theft of two generators, a power washer, and hand tools from the garage.
Two more break-ins occurred in March and April, causing damage to plumbing, flooring, a fence, and the lawn, and resulting in the theft of an air conditioner, a set of car wheels, and a radio.
Farmers Insurance paid Williamson roughly $17,000 for the claim arising from the first break-in, covering a garage door, five exterior doors, and two windows. Damage to other items was not compensated, and Williamson testified that he never sought reimbursement for the stolen items because an adjuster told him they were excluded from coverage.
Farmers refused to reimburse for all the property damage, stolen items, and lost rent. Williamson sued Farmers in October 2024, seeking more than $25,000. Farmers Insurance moved for summary judgment in October 2025, arguing the policy excluded coverage for lost rent because the units were unrented at the time of loss, excluded coverage for theft of personal property outright, and excluded coverage for the vandalism-related property damage because the duplex had sat vacant for more than 30 consecutive days. The trial court granted the motion in full in November 2025, and Williamson appealed.
Vacant or Not Vacant
Farmers Insurance argued it was not liable for the vandalism damage because the policy excluded coverage if the dwelling had been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days.
The policy's exclusion for vandalism, malicious mischief, burglary and theft applied if the dwelling "has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss." The policy further defined "vacant" to mean "the absence of most of the furniture and other items needed for human occupancy as a dwelling."
"Other items needed for human occupancy as a dwelling" was not defined, and the court found the term ambiguous and open to more than one reasonable reading. The duplex contained stoves and refrigerators at the time of the break-ins.
The court found that stoves and refrigerators "arguably are items needed for human occupancy as a dwelling," and that nothing in the record established that most of the items needed for human occupancy were absent from the duplex. The court ruled that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether the units had been "vacant" under the policy and reversed the summary judgment in part.
Theft & Lost Rents
Williamson also sought reimbursement for stolen items, including generators and tools taken from the garage, arguing that they were materials and supplies being used to repair the dwelling, making them covered property under the policy and not excluded as personal belongings.
The court found that it was unnecessary to determine whether the materials were used to repair the dwelling or were personal belongings since the policy contained an unambiguous exclusion for theft.
The exclusion stated the policy did not cover "any loss arising out of the theft or other unlawful taking from your premises of property, including, but not limited to, materials and supplies for use in construction."
Williamson also claimed lost rent due to the property being unrentable after the vandalism. The policy stated it would pay actual loss of rents only when a loss occurs to "that part of your premises rented to others at the time of the loss."
Williamson had admitted during deposition that the duplex did not have any tenants at the time of any of the three break-ins. The court affirmed the dismissal of the lost rent claims since there were no tenants at the time of loss.
Editor's Note
The appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower court on the stolen property and lost rents claims but reversed the ruling on the property damage due to vandalism claim. The court looked at the policy definition of "vacant" in making its ruling.
Since terms within the definition were open to more than one reasonable interpretation, it was deemed ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of the insured. The presence of stoves and refrigerators was enough to satisfy that the duplex was not missing most of the items needed for human occupancy, so the court could not find that the dwelling was vacant under the policy's definition.
It's important to remember that there's a difference between a property that is vacant and one that is simply unoccupied. Vacant property is generally devoid of content. Unoccupied is devoid of residents, but not property.
Read More:
Ray Sugrim
Ray Sugrim is an Insurance Editor with FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, a division of National Underwriter Company and Arc Network. Ray is responsible for helping develop and edit content for subscribers. Ray is a St John’s University graduate with a degree in Risk Management & Insurance and is a CPCU candidate.