Ninth Circuit Finds "Dwelling" in Homeowners Policy Ambiguous

        The Ninth Circuit found that the word “dwelling” in a homeowners policy was ambiguous becuase it could take on a broader meaning encompassing multiple structures. Safeco Ins. Co. ov Am. v. Havorson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12596 (9th Cir. May 23, 2023). 

    The issue was whether the homeowners policy eliminated an ambiguity on the meaning of “dwelling” such that “dwelling” could refer to a single structure. Safeco poirnted to the differences between Coverage A and Coverage B  in a homeowners policy. Coverage A applied to “the dwelling . . . including structures attached to the dwelling other than fences, driveways or walkways.” Coverage B applied to “other structures separated from the dwelling by clear space.”  Safeco argued that the dwelling constituted a single structure unless the dwelling and another structure were physically attached and Coverage B extended to all other strutures which were not physically attached to the singular dwelling. 

    The court noted, however, that the Coverage A and B provisions made equal sense if “dwelling” comprised two or more inhabited structures. The policy’s first two examples of “other structures” were uninhabited structures: “retaining walls” and “decorative or privacy walls.” This suggested the “other structures” connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, plumbing, or similar connection also referred to uninhabited structures, such as a detached garage, tool shed or gazebo. 

    Because “dwelling” could refer to multiple inhabited structures and nothing in the policy language rendered such an interpretation unreasonable, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Safeco was reversed and remanded.