MEMORANDUM OPINION
On cross motions for summary judgment, the Thomas County District Court held that the policy Defendant Safeco Insurance Company of America issued the plaintiffs for a house they owned and rented out did not cover an act of vandalism because the property had been vacant for an extended period of time. The parties agree the material facts are undisputed and the coverage issue turns on several interlocking provisions of the policy. We apply the same standards as the district court in reviewing summary judgment and owe no particular deference to the district courts analysis of the policy language. See Hernandez v. Pistotnik, 58 Kan. App. 2d 501, 505, 472 P.3d 110 (2020).
Having reviewed the record, the district courts written order granting summary judgment to Safeco, and the parties appellate briefs, we find no substantive error in the order and conclude it adequately sets forth the controlling facts and legal principles explaining the decision. We, therefore, affirm under Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(5) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48).
Per Curiam: