GEICO Casualty Co. v. Collins
371 P.3d 729
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Ryan and Amanda Collins were married; they separated in January 2018 after Amanda filed for dissolution and obtained a temporary (later permanent) protection order forbidding Ryan from contacting Amanda or entering the family home.
- After the separation Ryan moved in with friends, did not live at the marital home, and did not pay the household bills; Amanda remained in the house, changed locks, continued to pay insurance, and listed the house for sale.
- Amanda purchased a GEICO policy in February 2018 for the Jeep (which only she drove) and told GEICO she and Ryan were separated; GEICO did not list Ryan as a household resident or rate him for that policy.
- In May 2018 Ryan was injured riding the couple’s motorcycle (not an “owned auto” under the GEICO policy) and sought underinsured motorist benefits from GEICO as a ‘‘resident relative’’ of the named insured.
- GEICO denied coverage on the ground Ryan was not a ‘‘resident of the same household’’ as Amanda at the time of the accident; the district court granted summary judgment for GEICO. Ryan appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a spouse who is separated and living apart is a “resident of the same household” (and thus an insured under the policy) | GEICO: Ryan was not a resident of Amanda’s household at the time of the accident given the separation, protection order, lack of cohabitation, and Amanda’s disclosure to GEICO | Ryan: He remained married and had not established a new permanent residence, so he was a resident relative entitled to coverage; policy language is ambiguous | Court held Ryan was not a resident of Amanda’s household; summary judgment for GEICO affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boatright, 516 P.2d 439 (Colo. App. 1973) (sets multi-factor test for ‘‘resident of the same household’')
- Farmers Ins. Co. v. Plunkett, 687 P.2d 470 (Colo. App. 1984) (‘‘resident of household’’ not met where other place of lodging existed)
- Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Titus, 849 P.2d 908 (Colo. App. 1993) (summary judgment appropriate on residence question)
- Bailey v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 255 P.3d 1039 (Colo. 2011) (insurance-contract interpretation principles; review de novo)