Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Norton
2011 Ohio 6195
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Grange issued a homeowner’s policy to William Norton.
- Schari Norton, daughter of the Nortons, visited Ohio summers and some Christmases under a custody arrangement.
- Schari was injured on the first day of a summer visit while operating an ATV on William’s property.
- Grange sought declaratory judgment that Schari’s injuries were excluded as to an insured person under the policy.
- William and Carol Norton counterclaimed that Schari’s injuries were covered under the policy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Norton, ruling Schari was not an insured person; Grange appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schari is an insured person under the policy. | Grange asserts dual residency applies to shared custody. | Nortons contend Schari is not an insured resident under the policy. | No; Schari is not a resident for policy purposes. |
| Does Ohio law adopt a bright-line rule for dual residency in shared custody. | Grange seeks bright-line dual residency. | Norton argues against a bright-line rule, citing case law requiring duration/regularity. | Court rejects bright-line rule; residency requires duration/regularity. |
| Whether the minor’s residency with each parent shows a consistent pattern for duration/regularity. | Grange argues Schari resided with William during custody. | Nortons show a lack of consistent residency during the relevant period. | Undisputed facts show no consistent pattern of residence with William at the time of the accident. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. v. Taylor, 39 Ohio App.3d 68 (1987) (resident meaning requires duration/regularity, not temporary visitors)
- Hartong v. Makary, 106 Ohio App.3d 145 (1995) (dual residency concept for minors in custody cases)
- Entenman v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 136 Ohio App.3d 541 (2000) (minor dual residency where custody/visitation patterns exist)