Sandgren v. Fire Insurance Exchange

Opinion

FRIEDMAN, J. In this declaratory relief action the trial court held that a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by defendant did not cover fire loss of a bam owned by plaintiffs Sandgren and Larimer. The Sandgrens appeal.

For the most part, the facts are stipulated. Mr. and Mrs. Sandgren lived at 3443 Nuestro Road, Yuba City. In 1964 they took out a [636]homeowner’s policy which included fire insurance on their home. The policy was renewed at intervals thereafter. Two other plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Larimer, lived next door to the Sandgrens. In 1970 the Sandgrens and the Larimers bought an 8.5-acre parcel immediately behind their residential properties and took title as tenants in common. The bam in question was located on the 8.5-acre parcel, about 770 feet from the Sandgren home.

Although the stipulation did not describe the uses to which the bam was put, Mr. Sandgren testified it was used for the storage of personal property and also for cattle and sheep kept by his children as part of 4-H projects.

The insurance policy issued by defendant contains an extension clause permitting application of 10 percent of the policy limit to “private stmctures appertaining to the described premises of said dwelling and located thereon ....”

The bam was destroyed by fire in August 1973. The trial court concluded that the bam was neither appertaining to nor located upon the premises described in the policy and was not covered.

The trial court decided correctly. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the extension clause is not ambiguous. The face sheet of the policy gives the street address of the named insured. It then declares: “The described residence premises covered hereunder is [j/c] located at the above address, unless otherwise stated herein.” The policy contains no other description or designation of the insured premises. The extension clause describes two conjunctive, inseparable features of the covered private structures: (1) they must be appertaining to the described premises, and (2) they must be located “thereon,” i.e., on the described premises.

Out-of-state decisions construe the word “appurtenant” either in terms of use (i.e., as an auxiliary to the main dwelling) or in terms of the property’s location on the parcel or tract of land covered by the policy. (See Annot. 43 A.L.R.3d 1362.) Were appurtenance the only characteristic employed in the policy, the ambiguity of the clause would be self-evident. The policy goes farther. Not only must the structure be appertaining; it must also be “located thereon,” that is, on the insured premises, that is, on the premises described by the street number and designation, 3443 Nuestro Road, Yuba City.