Very rare Supreme Court win for an insured in a coverage issue
On September 26, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Court of Appeals decision that had denied insurance coverage for a family being sued after an RV injury. Fremont Insurance Company had argued that the Izenbaard family did not hve coverage for an injury suffered by Nathan Kadau because it occurred on owned and insured vacant property. The Court of Appeals had agreed and denied coverage, interpreting the word "premises" to require a structure on the land.
The Supreme Court, 7-0, held that there was no legal basis for Fremont to argue that it had limited coverage to injuries occuring on land occupied by a structure, since the policy did not include a definition of "premises" and the common dictionary usage of "premises" included vacant land. The over-reaching opinion to the contrary had originally been written by Republican appeals' judges Wilder, Hoekstra and Borrello.