American Risk Insurance Co. v. Serpikova, 522 S.W.3d 497

Insured Veronika Serpikova owned a Houston house, moved out in May 2012, and leased the property to tenants; she remained the named insured on a renewal homeowner’s policy effective September 6, 2012.
In November 2012 the house was severely damaged by fire; Serpikova submitted a claim and the insurer (American Risk) denied coverage because the property allegedly did not meet the policy’s definition of “residence premises.”
Serpikova sued for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and related statutory and tort claims; she moved for partial summary judgment that the loss was covered and the property was a “residence premises.”
The trial court granted Serpikova’s summary-judgment motion on coverage and later entered judgment awarding damages and fees; the insurer filed a post-judgment motion relying on Greene v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, which the trial court denied.
On appeal the court reviewed whether the policy’s definition of “residence premises” unambiguously required the insured to reside or intend to reside at the premises and whether Tex. Ins. Code §862.054 (the “anti-technicality” statute) barred the insurer’s coverage defense.
The court held Greene’s interpretation controlled: the policy covers dwellings only where an insured “resides or intends to reside within 60 days” of the policy effective date, so Serpikova’s property was not a covered residence and the trial court’s coverage ruling was reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Property falls within the policy definition of “residence premises” so the dwelling is covered	Serpikova: the declarations page lists the insured property and the definition’s first sentence makes that sufficient; the following “includes” clause merely enlarges scope	Insurer: the definition requires that an insured "resides or intends to reside within 60 days" at the premises; Serpikova neither resided nor intended to	Held: Followed Greene — the definition requires residence or intent to reside; no coverage as a matter of law
Whether Tex. Ins. Code §862.054 prevents insurer from denying coverage on this basis	Serpikova: the anti-technicality statute bars denial based on policy technicalities	Insurer: §862.054 does not apply to a circumstance that simply precludes coverage under the insuring clause	Held: §862.054 does not apply where the policy’s insuring clause definition precludes coverage; Greene controls; statute does not bar denial

Greene v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 446 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. 2014) (construed “residence premises” to require that an insured reside or intend to reside within 60 days; controlling here)
Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. 2006) (standard rules for interpreting standard-form insurance policies; meaning from four corners and ordinary public meaning)
Bowen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 837 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. 1992) (Supreme Court decisions operate retroactively unless otherwise specified)