Summary judgment was granted in favor of the insurer where the insured did not use the property as a residence.

The court found there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the insured's breach of contract claim where the policy unambiguously required that the property be used as the insured's residence. The insured did not meet the Pennsylvania residency requirement where he sporadically slept at the property, about two nights per week. The mere fact that the insured could enter the property when he wished carried little weight in determining residence. Pennsylvania law requires, at a minimum, some measure of "permanency or habitual repetition." His belief that he had 30 days to move in was unfounded and did not create the right to coverage.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011