## Facts

- Grace Langill owned a rental dwelling at 158 Mansfield Avenue in Norton, Massachusetts, about 35–40 feet from her own home at 156 Mansfield Avenue.
- Vermont Mutual Insurance Company issued a dwelling fire policy covering the rental property.
- The policy incorporated the Massachusetts standard fire policy form, including a vacancy clause barring liability for fire loss if a described residential building (three units or less) was vacant for more than sixty consecutive days, unless otherwise provided in writing.
- Tenants had lived in the rental house for about twelve years but moved out in February 1999, leaving the premises in worn condition.
- After the tenants left, Langill’s husband began refurbishing the house by cleaning, removing debris, filling nail holes, painting, repairing windows, and installing Venetian blinds.
- During the refurbishment period, the doors remained locked; utilities were kept on; and heating oil was supplied.
- The personal property in the house was limited and included items such as tools, a step ladder, two chairs, a mattress with frame and box spring, a radio, and an ashtray.
- Mr. Langill typically worked at the property for about one to two hours per day. He sometimes visited at night to smoke or meet friends and had coffee there several times. On one night, after an argument with Grace Langill, he stayed there overnight.
- On May 4, 1999, Mr. Langill was at the rental property in the late morning and then returned to the nearby family residence. In the early morning hours of May 5, he observed the rental property on fire.
- The Norton Fire Department determined the fire was arson.
- Langill filed a claim under the policy. Vermont Mutual denied coverage based on the vacancy clause.
- Langill sued, and the district court granted partial summary judgment to Vermont Mutual on the vacancy issue. Langill appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the rental dwelling was “vacant” for more than sixty consecutive days under the Massachusetts standard fire policy vacancy clause, despite daily repair visits, maintained utilities, and occasional social use.
2. Whether, on the undisputed facts, the insurer was entitled to partial summary judgment applying the vacancy exclusion to bar fire-loss coverage.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment for Vermont Mutual.
- The court held that the house was “vacant” within the meaning of the policy’s (and Massachusetts’ statutory) vacancy clause because it was not being used as a residence or place of regular habitation for more than sixty consecutive days.
- The court concluded that brief daily work visits, minimal furnishings, maintained utilities, and a single overnight stay did not amount to occupancy sufficient to avoid the vacancy exclusion.
- Because the vacancy exclusion applied, Vermont Mutual could deny coverage for the fire loss.

## Legal Principles

- When an insurance policy uses the Massachusetts standard fire policy language required by statute, courts apply the policy terms according to their fair meaning in context.
- For a dwelling, “vacant” focuses on the absence of residential habitation or regular living use, not merely whether the owner visits, works on, or otherwise intermittently uses the premises.
- Keeping utilities on, locking the premises, storing a few items, and conducting repairs are consistent with a building being vacant when no one lives there in an ongoing way.
- A single overnight stay or occasional social visits do not convert an otherwise uninhabited dwelling into an occupied residence for purposes of the vacancy clause.
- Summary judgment is proper when the material facts about the lack of habitation and the length of time without residential occupancy are not genuinely disputed and those facts place the loss within the vacancy exclusion.

## Conclusion

Langill v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. holds that a rental house left without ongoing residential habitation for more than sixty consecutive days was “vacant” under the Massachusetts standard fire policy vacancy clause, and that daily repair work, maintained utilities, and sporadic social use (including one overnight stay) did not prevent the insurer from denying coverage for an arson fire occurring during that period.


Langill v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co., 268 F.3d 46 (2001)