Country Preferred Insurance Company v. Smith, 2:11-cv-01779

This is an insurance coverage action arising from a fatality traffic accident involving Dane Michael Smith driving his mother and stepfather’s vehicle.
Country Insurance issued a policy to Susan and Shawn Greene covering insureds; “insured” includes the named insureds’ household members or those using the vehicle with permission.
The policy defines residence and permission as predicates for coverage; the central issue is whether Smith resided with the Greenes or had permission to drive the car.
Smith was homeless at the time of the accident and testified he did not reside with the Greenes; he lacked keys to the Greenes’ home and had no room there.
The court granted summary judgment for Country, holding there were no genuine disputes of material fact about Smith’s residence or permission to drive the car.
The court concluded Smith was not an insured under the policy and Country was entitled to declaratory relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Residence under the policy	Arnold argues Smith resided with Greenes	Country shows no genuine dispute of residence	No genuine dispute; Smith not a resident
Permission to drive the car	Arnold contends there was implied/express permission	Country shows no permission; prior acts insufficient	No genuine dispute; Smith lacked permission on the day

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden shifting; prima facie showing)
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Grange Ins. Ass'n, 684 P.2d 744 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984) (residence/household definitions; permanence vs. temporary stay)
Nat'l Gen. Ins. Co. v. Sherouse, 882 P.2d 1209 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (test for residence in a household)
McKee v. Garrison, 221 P.2d 514 (Wash. 1950) (express permission requires affirmative conduct; implied permission via course of conduct)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 869 P.2d 79 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (explicit denial of permission negates implied permission)
British Airways Bd. v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1978) (courts limit inferences to those supported by evidence)