Proper notification of vacancy does not result in insurance coverage for vandalism of vacant property: Saskatchewan court

The Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan has upheld an insurer’s policy that excludes coverage for vandalism on a “vacant” property, despite the policyholders’ claim the policy remained in force because he had told the insurer about the vacancy within the 30-day time period.
Roy Cheecham, a resident of the Clearwater River Dene Nation, was attempting to rent his property after tenants turned in their keys to his wife, Delores, without prior notice on Sept. 15, 2004.
After the property was vacated, Cheecham made a claim with SGI for three fires at the vacant property that occurred between Oct. 10 and 13, 2004.
The insurer denied the claim, noting provisions in the policy that stated: “Vandalism or Malicious Acts. We do not cover loss or damage…while your dwelling is under construction or vacant.”
In response, Cheecham pointed to the part of the policy that said: “If you do not tell us within 30 days of your dwelling becoming vacant, we will not cover any loss or damage that happens after 30 consecutive days of vacancy.”
Cheecham said did in fact tell SGI about the vacancy prior to the end of the 30-day “grace period.” He believed this showed he was following the terms of the policy, thereby granting him coverage.
But the court found the ultimate factor in favour of the insurer was an important statement contained in the policy right after the clause outlining the 30-day notification period of a vacancy: “Any permission for a vacancy that we allow in this condition does not change any coverage restriction, due to vacancy, mentioned in other parts of this policy.”