Court Finds No Duty to Defend Owed by Liability Carrier Where Daughter Did Not Reside with Insured Mother

In the case of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, No. 2019-0968-Civil (C.P. Lawr. Co. April 14, 2020 Cox, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of an auto insurance carrier arising out of a Declaratory Judgment Action regarding a coverage dispute for liability coverage given residency issues with respect to the daughter of the insured policyholder.

In this case, the insured’s daughter was involved in an accident while driving her uncle’s vehicle. The injured parties filed suit and pursued liability insurance proceeds from the uncle’s policy, as well as the policy purchased by the insured daughter’s mother. The theory against the mother’s carrier was that the daughter should have been deemed a “resident relative” of her mother's residence, thus entitling the daughter to coverage.

The carrier argued that (1) the daughter/driver denied that she resided with her mother in written discovery responses, (2) both the daughter and mother both testified at their respective depositions that they did not reside together, and (3) the record showed that the mother had removed her daughter from her policy three weeks before the accident.

In its Opinion, the Court found the terms of the applicable insurance policy to be clear and unambiguous. 

The Court went on to note the distinction between domicile and residence, and found that there was no dispute that the insured’s daughter had moved to Florida to live with her brother prior to the accident. Although she returned to Pennsylvania numerous times, the record confirmed that it was never with the intent to change her residence.

As such, summary judgment was granted in favor of the carrier, and it was held as a matter of law that the mother’s insurer did not owe defense or indemnification to the daughter arising out of the accident.

Anyone wishing to review the Court’s decision in this matter may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Aaron H.Weiss of the Pittsburgh law firm of Zimmer Kunz, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Addresses Question of Residency in UIM Case

In the case Geico Cas. Co. v. Alicea, No. 17-315-E (W.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2019 Bloch, J.), the court addressed the issue of whether the insureds qualified as household members under a stacked UIM policy entitling them to higher limit for UIM coverage for an accident. The court granted the motion in part and denied in motion in part with respect to different individuals seeking coverage.

After noting that the UIM policy at issue did not define the term “reside” or “residing,” the court turned to Pennsylvania law under which the courts had adopted the classical definition of the term of “residents” as well as classical definition of the related term of “domicile.”

The court noted that other decisions had indicated that, although these two (2) words may be used in the same context, the word 'resident' as used in an insurance policy without additional words of refinement, such as 'permanent,' 'legal,' etc., would carry a more transitory meaning. The court further noted that the word 'residence', being more transitory, is not to be considered to be synonymous with the term 'domicile' in this context.

After applying the law to the facts before it and emphasizing that the focus of the question of residency is on factual physical presence as opposed to intent to remain, the court issued its decision granting the motions at issue in part and denying them in part based upon different situations pending with the different insureds as issue.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Craig Murphey of the Erie, Pennsylvania law firm of Purchase, George & Murphey, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.