In the case of Barna v. Progressive Ins. Co., No. 3:22-CV-01845-KM (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2024 Mehalchick, J.), the court addressed a summary judgment filed by Defendant, State Farm, in a UIM case.
The Plaintiff claimed that State Farm wrongfully denied underinsured benefits that he was allegedly entitled to under his parents’ insurance policies.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving his father’s vehicle.
Due to the alleged severity of the Plaintiff’s injuries, the Plaintiff alleged that the liability coverage available to the at-fault driver and the coverage available on the vehicle that the Plaintiff was driving were insufficient to cover the Plaintiff’s damages. As such, the Plaintiff was also seeking to recover UIM benefits under policies issued to his stepfather and his mother, all of which policies were issued by State Farm.
A central issue in this case is whether the injured party was a “resident relative” under either policy issued by State Farm to the Plaintiff’s stepfather or his mother.
In her thorough Opinion, Judge Mehalchick reviewed the various definitions of the word “resident.” Judge Mehalchick also referred to Third Circuit precedent in which that court referred to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to define that a person lives in a location as a resident when they occupy a home on a permanent basis.
Judge Mehalchick also noted that the federal courts have held that, if a resident relative moves out of an insured’s home, they lose the residency status, unless they move back to live with the insured under the policy on a full-time basis.
The court noted that a “resident relative” who moves out of an insured’s home loses resident relative status except in limited circumstances, such is when the person leaves the home to go to school or on an extended vacation.
After reviewing the record before her relative to the injured party’s association with his parents’ residence, the court found that no reasonable juror could find that the injured party had lived at his stepfather’s and mother’s residence as of the time of the incident. Accordingly, the injured party was found not to be a resident relative under the State Farm policies at issue. As such, State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.