In Barna v. Progressive Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Justice Mehalchick) granted summary judgment for Defendant State Farm in a motor vehicle accident case.
In August 2020, Plaintiff was involved in a car accident when the tortfeasor attempted to turn in front of him and Plaintiff could not avoid the collision. Plaintiff sustained severe injuries and Plaintiff asserted that the tortfeasor’s insurance and the host vehicle’s UIM coverage together were insufficient to compensate Plaintiff for the injuries sustained. Plaintiff then sought underinsurance motorist coverage benefits from his parents’ policies; when this was denied by State Farm because it was opined by the carrier that the Plaintiff was not a resident relative of his parent’s household. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that State farm wrongfully denied him UIM coverage.
Gary Drakas successfully litigated this matter on behalf of State Farm.
The specific issue in this case centered on whether the Plaintiff was a “resident relative” of the insureds such that he would be entitled to coverage under their policy. As was successfully demonstrated to the court, Plaintiff was not residing at the parents’ address and did not qualify for their coverage. A “resident relative” is someone related to the named insured by blood, adoption, or marriage whose primary residence is with the named insured. A primary residence is the place where one occupies a home. It was again confirmed that temporary visits, regardless of frequency, are not enough to establish residency.
In this case, the Court was tasked with determining whether Plaintiff was a resident of his parents’ home at the time of the accident such that the UIM coverage would apply. The record showed that Plaintiff had moved out of the home more than a year before the accident and had not moved back. Supporting this determination was the fact that Plaintiff had been living with his aunt since he left his parents’ home and had taken his personal belongings with him, leaving only furniture that belonged to his mother.
Plaintiff argued that he was still receiving mail at his parents’ house, but the Court did not agree that he was a resident of his parent’s home. The undisputed record demonstrates that Plaintiff was not living with his parents at the time of the accident and was not a resident relative. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Gary Drakas can be reached with any questions.
