Court Opinion

ID: 9850356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:56:08.121081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:35.837197
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result).
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that “Prokops did not move to another location where they intended to permanently reside.” Such a conclusion is illogical. Prokops sold their house in Sioux Falls, loaded their possessions into a U-Haul trailer, and traveled to Sacramento, where Dianna had a new job. How could they more clearly indicate an intention to move permanently from Sioux Falls to Sacramento? Although they had not yet acquired permanent housing when they arrived in Sacramento, that does not mean they had not moved to “another location where [they] intended] to permanently reside.” In other words, a move to another location can commence before the final, precise destination is known. Therefore, the “Change of Location” provision controls this case.
The “Change of Location” provision contains a coverage limitation for property “in transit.” When property is in transit it is covered against loss only for ten percent of the prescribed coverage. In general, property is “in transit” from the time it leaves its point of departure until it arrives safely *867at its destination. See Stein-McMurray Ins., Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 95 Idaho 818, 520 P.2d 865 (1974). As explained by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire:
Property is considered in transit when it is moving from one location to another. This does not exclude temporary stops, incidental delays, or some deviation from the planned route of travel. However when the property to be transported has reached its destination it is generally no longer considered in transit.
Lariviere v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 105 N.H. 73, 75, 193 A.2d 13, 15 (1963) (citation omitted); accord Boonton Handbag Co., Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 125 N.J.Super. 287, 310 A.2d 510 (App.Div.1973). The Days Inn was not the destination of Prok-ops’ property. Prokops concede they did not intend to permanently reside at the Days Inn. It was simply a temporary stop until they could acquire permanent housing. Since the property had not yet reached its final destination when it was stolen, it was still in transit. Consequently, the ten percent “in transit” limitation is applicable. The exposure of the property to theft or damage substantially increased as a result of this temporary stop and justified the policy’s “in transit” limitation.