This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns the interpretation of a homeowner's insurance policy issued by the Plaintiff-Appellant to the Defendant-Appellee. The Defendant owned two properties: Premises A, listed in the policy, and Premises B, where the accident occurred. The Defendant had rented Premises B until 1986 but began preparing it for personal residence use in April 1986. The accident occurred in May 1986, before the Defendant moved into Premises B in July 1986. At the time of the accident, Premises B was unoccupied (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the insurance policy covered the accident at Premises B (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant (Farmers Insurance Company): Argued that the policy excluded coverage for bodily injury arising from premises owned by the insured but not listed as an "insured location." Premises B did not qualify as an "insured location" under the policy because it was not acquired during the policy period for use as a residence (paras 3-4).
- Defendant-Appellee (Donald Burton): Contended that the policy language allowed for a change in residence and that he had effectively converted Premises B to his personal residence by April 1986. He argued that "acquiring" another residence under the policy did not require purchasing a new property but could include transitioning an existing property for personal use (paras 5-6).
Legal Issues
- Did the insurance policy cover an accident occurring at a property owned by the insured but not listed in the policy as an "insured location"? (para 1)
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee, holding that the policy covered the accident at Premises B (para 7).
Reasons
Per Sosa C.J. (Ransom, Baca, and Montgomery JJ. concurring):
The Court agreed with the Defendant's interpretation of the policy, finding that it was not necessary for the Defendant to have physically moved into Premises B for it to qualify as an "insured location." The Defendant's affidavit and deposition established that he had taken steps to convert Premises B into his personal residence by April 1, 1986, including removing it from a rental listing. These actions were sufficient to meet the policy's requirement of "acquiring" the property for use as a residence. The burden then shifted to the Plaintiff to provide evidence creating a genuine issue of fact, which it failed to do. As a result, the trial court's grant of summary judgment was proper (paras 6-7).