A trial court jury returned a verdict requiring a mobilehome insurer to pay the full amount of personal property and adjacent structures losses at a location in a city other than the one in which the insured's mobile home was located. The insurer appealed the verdict. It had offered to pay 10% of the personal property loss but nothing on fire damage to the structure.

The appeal court noted that the mobilehome policy paid personal effects losses up to a specified amount when located in the home or in an adjacent structure on the described premises. An extension of personal effects coverage provided for payment of personal effects losses off premises up to 10% of the specified amount. Another section of the policy provided coverage for "adjacent structures" on the mobile home premises.

The record showed that the insureds intended to move their mobile home to the city where the losses occurred. They had, in fact, moved some of their personal possessions to a pole barn on the premises where they planned to take the home. It was there that the losses were incurred for which claim was made.

The appeal court said that personal property must have been located either in the mobile home or in a fully enclosed "adjacent structure located on (their) premises" for reimbursement in full for a covered loss. It further said that "a structure cannot be considered `adjacent' if it is on non-adjacent premises located in a different city." It concluded that the insureds were entitled to reimbursement for their personal property loss up to 10% of the amount of coverage specified in the policy for personal effects. They could take nothing for the fire damage to the pole barn.

The judgment of the trial court was reversed accordingly in favor of the insurance company and against the insureds.

(WOOSLEY ET UX., Respondents v. TRANSAMERICA INS. CO., Appellant. Oregon Court of Appeals. No. CA A66879. March 11, 1992. 826 P.2d 1054. CCH 1992 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 3892.)