News
Trial Must Determine Whether Homeowner Actually Resided in Covered Property
April 26, 2024
Share to:
The Western District of Pennsylvania recently denied dueling motions for summary judgment in a homeowner’s insurance coverage action where each party presented its own narrative about whether plaintiff resided at the insured property. The case of Menzies v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company involved water damage sustained to a property in 2022. Plaintiff’s insurance policy defined the “insured premises” as the “residence premises,” and, in pertinent part, defined “residence premises” as “the one or two family dwelling where you reside.” Menzies v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. 2:23-CV-79, 2024 WL 1677486, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2024).
The plaintiff first moved into the property in 2001, and in 2021 she began a remodel during which she stayed with her boyfriend and stored furniture and other items in her garage. She did not sleep again at the property, but ate meals there several times a month and she or her son were at the property every other day. Id. The property was also listed on plaintiff’s bank accounts and tax return. But she changed the address on her driver’s license to that of her boyfriend’s, stating the two had purchased a vehicle together and the vehicle’s insurance policy was under the boyfriend’s name and address.
Pennsylvania law defines residence as “one's factual place of abode,” and a person can have more than one residence. Id. at 2, citing Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Clyman, 910 F. Supp. 230, 232 (E.D. Pa. 1996). “[S]ome measure of permanency or habitual repetition” is required to establish residence or residency. Id. at 2, citing Wall Rose Mut. Ins. Co. v. Manross, 939 A.2d 958, 965 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). Factors reflecting some measure of permanency or habitual repetition include where an individual sleeps, receives mail and stores personal items, as well as the address listed by the individual on his/her driver’s license, tax return and bank account(s). Gerow v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Co., 346 F. Supp. 3d 769, 779 (W.D. Pa. 2018).
The Court decided that the parties’ competing narratives must be put before a factfinder. In particular, the Court held that the plaintiff’s decision to change the address on her driver’s license was a credibility issue appropriate only for a trial. This case demonstrates the importance of conducting thorough fact investigation and discovery where coverage turns on where an insured actually resided.
