A fire struck the only home owned by the Pour family in Minnesota, but the true devastation came later in the claims process when Liberty Mutual denied coverage for the dwelling, the sons’ personal property, and alternative living expenses. On appeal, both sides brought forceful arguments. The decision that followed is a reminder that homeowners insurance policies operate at the intersection of law, language, and human expectations and that small misunderstandings can destroy coverage. When it comes to homeowners coverage, many policies place extreme importance on the people residing in the home to obtain coverage.
The policyholders argued passionately that the phrase “where you reside,” embedded in the definition of “residence premises,” was never meant to operate as a trapdoor excluding coverage whenever a homeowner temporarily lived elsewhere. To them, it was simply a representation of the home’s status at the time they first bought the insurance. They insisted that nothing in the policy required ongoing residency and that Minnesota law has long allowed people to have more than one residence.
In their view, Liberty Mutual turned the policy into a shell game by insisting the property was not covered unless the named insured physically lived there, even though the declarations page listed their house as the insured location. They warned that such an interpretation made coverage illusory, cut against the Minnesota Standard Fire Policy, and blurred the distinction between owning multiple residences and abandoning a home. They also argued that since the father had insured the home and the sons lived there, they should still qualify as insureds for their personal property. Finally, they objected to the district court’s dismissal of the father’s personal property claim, even though Liberty Mutual had conceded it was covered.
Liberty Mutual’s argument, in contrast, stayed rooted in the policy’s text. They emphasized that “residence premises” was a defined term requiring the named insured to reside at the location, not simply own it. Liberty Mutual stressed that residency is a condition of coverage, not a historical descriptor. To Liberty Mutual, this case had nothing to do with continuous occupancy but simple actual residency. The father, Pour Sr., had moved to Georgia, changed all formal documents to Georgia, rarely visited Minnesota, did not stay overnight at the home during the policy period, and no longer used the Champlin house as a residence.
Under such facts, the home could not be a “residence premises,” regardless of who else lived there. And if the father did not reside there, his sons could not be residents of his household. Liberty Mutual also rejected the argument that the policy violated Minnesota’s Standard Fire Policy, which speaks to vacancy limitations, not residency-based underwriting. It maintained that different types of policies exist for different risks and that homeowner’s coverage requires owner-occupancy. It also insisted that “insured location” in the declarations encompassed the “residence premises” by definition and therefore did not create illusory coverage.
The appellate opinion found the phrase “where you reside” to be unambiguous and grounded its meaning in ordinary dictionary definitions. The court noted that residency requires living in a place for a period of time, having an actual presence, and treating it as a home. The undisputed facts showed that Pour Sr. had not lived in the Champlin home for over two years. He lived in Georgia full time, spent only occasional short visits in Minnesota, stayed elsewhere during those visits, changed his identification and mailing addresses, and had no intent to return to live in the Champlin house. The court concluded he did not reside there under any reasonable interpretation of the word.
Because the home was not a “residence premises,” dwelling coverage never attached. The court explained that it did not matter whether residency is interpreted as a continuing warranty or merely a description at inception. Pour Sr. did not reside there at either time. The Standard Fire Policy argument also collapsed because Minnesota law allows insurers to create different products for different uses. Conditioning homeowner’s coverage on actual residency was not a forbidden enhancement of the vacancy clause but a legitimate underwriting distinction between an owner-occupied home and all other types of property.
The court also rejected the late-raised illusory coverage claim by pointing out that the policy defined “insured location” to include the residence premises, meaning the declarations page identified the property, but coverage still hinged on residency. On the sons’ claims, the court applied Minnesota’s longstanding household-residency test and found they could not be insureds because they did not live under the same roof as the named insured. Occasional family visits, however heartfelt, do not form a shared household under Minnesota law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court decision in full. 1
There is a quiet heartbreak behind cases like this. Policyholders buy insurance to protect the places and people they cherish, not to wage battles over definitions written in eight-point type. Yet the law holds them to those policy definitions.
The real tragedy here is not merely that coverage was denied, but that the denial could have been prevented. The lesson is as practical as it is painful. Policyholders must keep their insurance agents informed of changes in how a home is used and who is living there. A homeowner who moves, even temporarily, must pick up the phone, send an email, or schedule the meeting.
Agents should, in turn, be asking probing, even uncomfortable questions about occupancy, ownership, and usage. Property insurance adjusters should do the same because these issues shape the very existence of coverage. Assumptions, silence, and good intentions do not survive a fire claim, only clarity does.
Insurance is ultimately a promise. But a promise requires both sides to understand what they are agreeing to. The Pour case shows how easily that understanding can slip away and how high the cost can be when it does. I doubt most families appreciate how important residency is when it comes to coverage.
For readers wishing to understand this issue in greater detail, I suggest reading “Move Out and Lose Coverage—Common Property Insurance Minefields Caused By Changes of Residency.”
Thought For The Day
“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
—George Bernard Shaw
1 Pour v. Liberty Mutual Personal Ins. Co., No. 24-1824, 2025 WL 3440993 (8th Cir. Dec. 1, 2025). (See also, Pour appellate brief and Liberty Mutual appellate brief).