If your garage isn’t physically attached to your home, is it still part of your “dwelling”? That seemingly simple question led to a surprising decision from a Georgia federal court that should catch the attention of homeowners everywhere. This tale of policy language, legal arguments, and an unfortunate tree offers a critical lesson for all of us about insurance.

Martha Gomez faced a homeowner’s worst nightmare—a fallen tree completely crushed her detached garage. Confident that her insurance policy with Foremost Insurance covered such incidents, Ms. Gomez filed a claim, expecting the damage to be swiftly repaired.

However, Foremost Insurance contested coverage, arguing that the garage wasn’t actually part of the insured “dwelling.” According to the insurance company, Gomez’s policy only protected structures specifically described or physically attached to her main house. Foremost insisted that because the damaged garage was a separate structure not explicitly covered on her declarations page or physically attached to her home, it wasn’t covered under the terms of her policy. 1 The policy language stated:

“COVERAGE A – Dwelling

We insure:

    1. Your dwelling shown on the Declarations Page;
    2. Materials and supplies on your premises for use in the construction, alteration, or repair of your dwelling shown on the Declarations Page;
    3. Any structure you own on your premises that is attached to your dwelling, other than another structure attached by a fence, utility line, or similar connection; and
    4. Your fixtures and appliances that built in or permanently affixed to your dwelling.

We do not insure:

    1. Land, including any cost to repair, rebuild, stabilize or otherwise restore land, including land on which your dwelling is located, either before or after a loss; or,
    2. Loss, including damage or remediation costs, caused by or resulting from the presence of mold, mildew, or other fungi, their secretions, or dry or wet rot of any kind regardless of the cause, condition, or loss that led to their formation or growth.”

Ms. Gomez disagreed and argued that under Georgia law, the definition of “dwelling” should encompass adjacent buildings used in connection with the home, including garages. She pointed out legal precedents suggesting that “dwelling” could include multiple structures within the immediate property area—also known as curtilage—so long as they were used for residential purposes. Gomez contended that her garage, standing just feet from her home, was integral to her residence, and thus should be covered. 2

Unfortunately for Gomez, the court sided firmly with Foremost. 3 The judge ruled that the insurance policy language clearly differentiated between structures that were attached to the dwelling and those that were detached, regardless of proximity or use. The court emphasized that the policy explicitly covered only the building described on the declarations page or structures physically attached to it. Since Gomez’s garage was unattached, it fell outside the policy’s explicit coverage, resulting in the dismissal of all her claims, including breach of contract and bad faith.

This ruling illustrates a harsh truth about insurance: If it’s not clearly written down in your policy, don’t count on coverage. While it seems logical that a garage just feet away would naturally be covered, logic doesn’t always prevail in insurance law. Instead, it’s the black-and-white terms of the policy that matter.

IRMI has a discussion of this coverage debate, 4 noting the following, and a court case coming to a different conclusion about a “dwelling:”

In the 1970s, the price of homes increased rapidly in the United States. Buyers were looking for ways to save money. Builders were looking for ways to keep their prices in check. A big part of the price of a home is the value of the land. A home with a detached garage takes more land than a home with an attached or built-in garage. As a result, builders cut way back on the number of homes constructed with detached garages.

However, the homeowners insurance policy retained a separate and distinct limit for ‘other structures.’ Many people looked at this and thought they were being charged for a coverage under which they could never collect. At this point, some insurers changed their policy wordings or the way they adjusted claims. Some insurers removed separate references to the ‘dwelling’ and ‘other structures.’ These insurers now have one limit that applies to all structures on the residence premises—dwelling, garage, shed, fence, and anything else that qualifies as a ‘structure.’

Other insurers maintained the two distinct coverages—dwelling and other structures—but changed the wording of the loss conditions section. Paraphrasing this wording, these insurers agreed that, in the event of a loss to the dwelling, if the insured had no separate ‘other structures’ on the premises at the time of a loss, the limit for other structures would be added into the limit for the dwelling.

Still, other insurers adopted a less formal approach. These insurers instructed their adjusters to handle such claims as if the limit for other structures were added into the limit of liability for the dwelling.

Note that the personal property coverage applies to items inside the other structure, such as tools in a shed. The personal property coverage helps protect belongings regardless of where they are kept.

Due to the 10 percent limit, other structures coverage may present coverage gaps, which was the case in McFarland v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2019 WL 362185, LEXIS 18 (Idaho Jan. 30, 2019). The homeowners owned a detached garage in addition to their main cabin. The 10 percent rule meant that they only had $23,000 in coverage for the garage. A radiant heater burst and damaged this detached structure.

After the McFarlands filed a claim, Liberty stated that the damage was covered under the policy. Believing the damage to fall under the dwelling coverage, the McFarlands hired contractors to repair the damage. However, after Liberty paid out the $23,000, the insurer stated that the coverage was exhausted because the damage fell under the other structures coverage. This led the insureds to sue Liberty on the issue of whether the damage fell under the dwelling coverage or the other structures coverage.

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled in favor of the insured and found that the term ‘dwelling’ was ambiguous. In reaching this result, the court first noted that the policy failed to define the term ‘dwelling’ despite defining various other terms. The court then found that failing to define a term when there are other defined terms weighed in favor of ambiguity. Because the policy was ambiguous, the court ruled that coverage was owed to the insureds and that ‘dwelling’ as used in the McFarlands’ policy encompassed both the cabin and the garage.

This case teaches policyholders a simple but vital lesson: Review your homeowner’s policy closely. Don’t assume your detached garage, shed, or workshop is automatically protected. Always verify that these additional structures are specifically listed or clearly included in your coverage. Speak with your insurance agent to make any necessary adjustments. After all, clarity today prevents headaches tomorrow—especially if tomorrow brings an unexpected tree.

Thought For The Day

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
—Benjamin Franklin

1 Gomez v. Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids, Mich., No. 4:24-cv-00099 [Doc. 12, Motion to Dismiss] (N.D. Ga.).
2 Gomez v. Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids, Mich., No. 4:24-cv-00099, [Doc.13, Response to Motion to Dismiss] (N.D. Ga.).
3 Gomez v. Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids, Mich., No. 4:24-cv-00099 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2025).
4 Homeowners Coverage B Other Structures, IRMI (International Risk Management Institute). Available online with subscription at https://www.irmi.com/online/products/personal-risk-management-and-insurance/homeowners/iso-ho3-form-2022/section-i-property-coverages/coverage-b-other-structures.