In the non-precedential case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Montesano, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that plaintiff met the definition of a “resident” under an auto policy, and was covered for underinsured motorist benefits, even though she was not physically residing in her father’s home at the time of the subject accident.
Plaintiff’s parents were divorced when she was two years old. She resided with her father until she graduated high school and would periodically visit her mother in Florida. In 2013, following an argument with her father, plaintiff left her father’s home to live with her mother in Florida. She did not take all of her belongings with her, retained keys to the father’s residence, and continued to receive mail there. Then in September of 2013, plaintiff went to stay with her maternal grandmother in Alabama getting an Alabama issued driver’s license, transferring her voter registration, and purchased a new cell phone plan with an Alabama service provider. In December of 2013, she visited her father and reconciled with him stating an intent that she “wanted to come back home.” Plaintiff returned to Alabama to retrieve her personal items planning on returning to her father’s home in January. Before returning to her father’s home, the plaintiff drove back to Florida with her mother and then planned on flying home to Pennsylvania from Florida on January 8, 2014. However, on the drive to Florida, on January 2, 2014, plaintiff sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in her mother’s minivan.
Following the accident, plaintiff presented a claim for UIM benefits under her father’s Erie policy issued in Pennsylvania. Erie denied coverage concluding that plaintiff did not qualify as a “resident” of her father’s home in Pennsylvania because she was not physically living there on a regular basis at the time of the accident. After a bench trial, the lower court found that essentially the plaintiff’s true and permanent residence was her father’s home in Pennsylvania entitling her to UIM benefits. Erie appealed maintaining, among other arguments, that the trial court erred because plaintiff was not physically living with her father at the time of the subject accident.
On appeal, the Superior Court examined Erie’s policy language that defined “resident” as follows: “Resident is defined as a person who physically lives with you in your household on a regular basis. Your unmarried, unemancipated children attending school full time, living away from home, will be considered residents of your household.” When examining the policy language, the Court determined that the qualifying clause “on a regular basis” was ambiguous subject to different meanings and the phrase was subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Agreeing with the trial court, the Superior Court found that the policy definition indicated a broader coverage for individuals who, with some regularity, have lived and will live with the insured, although they physically dwelled elsewhere at the time of the accident.
Rejecting Erie’s arguments, the Superior Court noted that the lower court considered the policy’s qualifying language, “on a regular basis”, in determining that plaintiff was a resident of her father’s residence after properly considering an array of factors. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff reconciled with her father and had a concrete plan to resume living with her father which further illustrated the transient nature of her trip to her mother’s and grandmother’s homes and established the “factual place of abode.” Further, the Court concluded that after a multi-factor analysis, the evidence established that plaintiff had more than sporadic or occasional contact with her father’s home and maintained a clear connection to the Pennsylvania residence, and only intended to temporarily leave that location when she took her sojourns to Florida and Alabama.
Questions regarding this opinion may be sent to David Friedman.
