Judge Mehalchick of Federal Middle District Addresses Definition of Resident Relative

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 as 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.

Injured Party Found To Be a Resident Under Policy for UIM Coverage Purposes (Non-Precedential)

In the non-precedential case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Montesano, No. 262 E.D.A. 2021 (Pa. Super. Feb. 24, 2022 Lazarus, J., Dubow, J., and Pellegrini, J.) (Op. by Lazarus, J.) (Dubow, J, dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s decision that a Plaintiff insured met the definition of a “resident” as defined by the insurance company’s policy in this UIM coverage litigation.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s parents had divorced when the Plaintiff was 2 years of age. It was reported that the Plaintiff resided with her father and her stepmother in their Montgomery County home through the Plaintiff’s birth through her graduation from high school in 2013. At times, the Plaintiff would visit her mother in Florida for one (1) month over the summer and for one (1) week every other Christmas.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s father and stepmother owned three (3) vehicles, all of which were insured under an Erie Insurance policy. Under that policy, the term “resident” was defined as “a person who physically lives with ‘you’ in ‘your’ household on a regular basis.”

The court also noted that, on August 3, 2013, following an argument with her father and stepmother and without the knowledge of her father and stepmother, the Plaintiff left her father’s home and flew to Florida to stay with her mother. The Plaintiff took some clothing, a couple of shoes, deodorant, a toothbrush, toothpaste and underwear with her on the trip to Florida. It was noted that the Plaintiff did not take her computer or any jewelry and did not make any arrangements to have those items shipped to Florida. The court noted that the Plaintiff retained her key to her stepfather’s home and continued to receive mail there.

The Plaintiff then lived in Florida and slept on her mother’s couch for approximately one (1) month. While the Plaintiff was in Florida, she obtained state-issued driver’s license and registered to vote.

Seeking another change of scenery, the Plaintiff then left her mother’s home in September of 2013 to visit her maternal grandparents in Alabama. While in Alabama, the Plaintiff obtained an Alabama-state-issued driver’s license, transferred her voter’s registration, and purchased a new month-to-month cell phone plan through an Alabama service provider. The Plaintiff also obtained a job obtained a job and had her own bedroom in her grandmother’s house.

In December of 2013, the Plaintiff returned to her father’s house in Pennsylvania but stayed at a hotel. However, the Plaintiff did visit her father’s house for dinner and, at that dinner, reconciled with her dad and her stepmother and told them that she “wanted to come back home.” The Plaintiff decided to take her scheduled flight back to Alabama to retrieve her personal items and then return to her father’s home in Pennsylvania sometime in January.

The Plaintiff then returned to Alabama after her short visit to Pennsylvania. She decided to drive back to Florida with her mother after her mother had visited the grandmother in Alabama for the Christmas holidays.

The Plaintiff then planned to fly home to Pennsylvania from Florida on January 8, 2014. However, on the drive to Florida on January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident in Florida while a passenger in her mother’s minivan.

Following the accident, the Plaintiff presented a claim for UIM benefits under the Erie Insurance policy that was issued to her father in Pennsylvania.

Erie investigated the claim and ultimately concluded that the Plaintiff did not qualify as a “resident” of her father’s Pennsylvania home because she had not been physically living there on a regular basis at the time of the accident.

After a bench trial held at the trial court level, that court found that, “for all intents and purposes [the Plaintiff’s] true and permanent residence” was her father’s home in Pennsylvania. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed in this decision.

After reviewing the law of residency in this context, and applying the particular language of the policy at issue in terms of the definition of a resident, the court focused on the fact that the definition in the Erie policy define resident, in part, as involving a person who resided in the insured’s residence “on a regular basis.”

The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding that such a phrase indicates a broader coverage for individuals who, with some regularity, have lived and will live with the insured, even though they may have physically dwelled somewhere else at the time of the accident. As such, the court found that the law does not require that the insured be physically living at the residence of the insured at the time of an accident in order to be covered under an insurance policy.

Here, where at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was found to have lived with her father and stepmother in Pennsylvania on a regular basis, the Plaintiff qualified as a “resident” as defined under the policy and was, therefore, found to be entitled to the benefit of UIM coverage under the policy at issue.

The Court's Non-Precedential majority Opinion can be viewed at this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Alex on Unsplash

Home Hopping Daughter Found To Be Resident of Her Father's House For Car Insurance Coverage Purposes

In the case of apparent first impression, a Montgomery County judge ruled in the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Montesano, No. 2016-13318 (C.P. Montg. Co. Sept. 1, 2020 Rogers, J.), that a daughter who lived periodically in different relatives’ homes was considered to be a resident of her father's house and therefore covered under her father’s car insurance policy. As such, the court held that Erie Insurance could be held liable for $200,000.00 in coverage for injuries allegedly sustained by the daughter during a motor vehicle accident that occurred while she was traveling from her mother’s home in Florida to her grandparents’ home in Alabama. 

The Erie Insurance policy at issue belonged to the injured party’s father and stepmother. 

According to the Opinion, the injured party daughter lived with her father and stepmother for about 19 years before moving in with her mother in Florida. She then decided to move in with her grandparents in Alabama. 

The injured party’s movements among the residences apparently ended when the family members decided that she should move back to the home of her father and stepmother. Prior to her return, the subject accident occurred in which the daughter was injured and her mother was fatally injured. The injured party’s sister was driving the vehicle at the time, which vehicle belonged to the injured party’s mother. 

The family filed a claim with Erie on behalf of the injured daughter demanding the payment of the $200,000.00 policy limits. The carrier denied coverage because the injured party was not a “resident” of the father and stepmother’s home at the time of the accident. 

The court found that the central issue of the case was what constituted “physically living” with another “on a regular basis” under the terms of the policy. 

The court found that the injured party daughter had physically lived in her father and stepmother’s home for nineteen (19) years before departing with a carry-on bag and a few clothes, shoes, and toiletries, but leaving behind all of her other worldly possessions. 

The court ruled that the injured party daughter only lived as a house guest at both her mother’s trailer house in Florida and her grandmother’s house in Alabama. The court noted that the injured party’s previous visit to her mother and grandmother had been temporary and sporadic. The court found that the trip at issue was no different. 

The court otherwise noted that, although as a question of physical fact, the injured party was making her way from her grandmother’s home to her father’s home at the time of the accident, for all intents and purposes, the injured party’s true and permanent residence was her father’s home. 

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

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer P.C., for bringing this case to my attention.

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.

No UIM Stacking Allowed Where Daughter No Longer Resided in Insured's Household (Non-Precedential)

In the case of Grix v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., No. 312 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Feb. 10, 2020 Dubow, J., Nichols, J., and Colin, J.) (Mem. by Dubow, J.) (Nichols, J., concurring in the result) (non-precedential decision), the court affirmed the lower court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the carrier in this declaratory judgment action involving a stacking issue.

According to the Opinion, the insured’s daughter sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident. 

At the time of the accident, the insured’s daughter was in a vehicle owned by the insureds and covered under a policy issued by the Defendant carrier. The carrier insured five (5) vehicles owned by the insureds and the insured’s policy carried stacked limits of underinsured motorist coverage of $250,000.00 each person. The insureds sought to recover stacked UIM benefits from the carrier relative to the accident.

The carrier denied the claim for stacked benefits under an argument that the insured daughter, who had signed a lease at another address approximately six (6) weeks prior to her death, was not a “resident” of the insured’s household. 

The insureds filed this declaratory judgment action. 

After completing a detailed analysis of the numerous facts presented by both sides as to the residency of the insured’s decedent at the time of the accident, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the carrier. 

The trial court had ruled that, as a matter of “physical fact and presence,” the decedent’s daughter was not a resident of the insured’s household at the time of the accident. 

The policy language was also found to be unambiguous as to the relevant time of residency. 

The appellate court affirmed and noted that, under Pennsylvania law, the term of “resident” or “residency” requires, at a minimum, “so measure of permanency or habitual repetition.” See Op. at 10.  The court noted that most cases interpreting the “resident” analyzed the issue with regards to the quantity of contacts that an individual has with an insured’s household. 

In this case, although the insured’s daughter still received mail at her parent’s house, kept personal belongings at her parents’ house and continued to use her parents’ address as her address of record, the daughter could not be considered to be a “resident” of the insured’s household where, among other things, the daughter slept elsewhere every night. See Op. at 12. 

The court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the daughter spent any night at her parents’ home after she moved into her rental premises prior to the accident.  As such, the Superior Court the court affirmed the lower court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the carrier in this declaratory judgment action on the stacking issue. 

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

I send thanks to Attorney David R. Friedman of the King of Prussia, PA office of Forry Ullman for bringing this case to my attention.