Opinion ID: 2054469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kevin's entitlement to Loss of Use

Text: [¶ 19] Hanover contends that Kevin was entitled to no payments for loss of use of the property following the fire, [9] and Kevin contends that the loss of use payments awarded to him were insufficient. The policy guaranteed that Hanover would pay the insured for loss of use [i]f a loss covered under this Section makes that part of the residence premises where you reside not fit to live in. (Emphasis added.) On May 31, 1998, Beverly was living in the house. After the fire she exercised her right to demand that Kevin immediately purchase the house. Once Kevin did this in mid-June of 1998, he legally assumed full title to and possession of the house. Kevin asserts that he would have moved into the house immediately had it not been rendered unlivable by the fire, so that he was entitled to payment from Hanover for loss of use. [10] Hanover argued that the language of the policy clearly indicates that the person entitled to loss of use payments is the person who was actually residing in the house at the time of the accident. [¶ 20] While the trial court agreed with Kevin that he became entitled to loss of use payments as soon as he acquired an interest in the house, it concluded that Kevin took an unreasonable amount of time to renovate the house. Policy provisions for loss of use payments were for the shortest time required to repair or replace the damage. (Emphasis added.) [¶ 21] Although the court found Kevin entitled to loss of use proceeds once Beverly vacated the house, he failed to present evidence in his opposition to Hanover's summary judgment motion sufficient to establish that the four months (the time for which Hanover paid the Gilberts proceeds for the loss of use) was not a reasonably sufficient time in which to complete the repairs. Thus, the court did not err in entering a summary judgment in favor of Hanover. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.