Hanson Farm Mutual Insurance Co. of South Dakota v. Degen, 829 N.W.2d 474

Hanson Farm Mutual Insurance Co. seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no obligation to indemnify or defend Marcus Degen in a wrongful death action arising from Adrianna Sellers’ death.
Marcus, Tina Sellers as personal representative, and Adrianna’s family were involved in a domestic living arrangement with shared finances and caregiving duties.
Marcus was the named insured under a homeowners policy with an immunizing household exclusion that bars coverage for bodily injury to you, your relatives, and persons under your care.
Adrianna, six years old, lived in the home; Marcus assisted with care, supervision, and financial support; Adrianna treated Marcus as a parental figure.
On October 27, 2007, Adrianna was killed by Marcus while operating a skid loader; the couple continued living together for about a year afterward before separating.
The trial court held Adrianna was “in Marcus’s care” under the eight-factor test and thus excluded from coverage; the appeal follows the declaratory-judgment trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the phrase 'in your care' ambiguous in homeowners coverage?	Degen and Sellers contend it is ambiguous due to multiple dictionary meanings of 'care'.	HFMIC argues the phrase has a plain meaning and is unambiguous.	Unambiguous; interpreted as 'under the insured’s charge or supervision'.
Did Adrianna fall within the 'in your care' exclusion under the eight-factor test?	Adrianna was not in Marcus’s care; factors do not support care status.	Adrianna was in Marcus’s care per the eight-factor test, given supervision and support.	Adrianna was in Marcus’s care; exclusion applies.

Oliva v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., 842 A.2d 92 (N.H. 2004) (eight-factor test for whether within 'care')
Henderson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 596 N.W.2d 190 (Mich. 1999) (eight-factor approach to 'in care' analysis)
Mitsock v. Erie Ins. Exch., 909 A.2d 828 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (uses eight-factor framework)
Priest v. Roncone, 851 A.2d 751 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004) (defines 'care' as supervision; eight-factor approach)
Cierzan ex rel. Weis v. Kriegel, 655 N.W.2d 221 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (unambiguous interpretation of 'in your care')
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Odom, 799 F.2d 247 (6th Cir. 1986) (principles on insurance coverage interpretation)
Ass Kickin Ranch, LLC v. N. Star Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 SD 73 (S.D. 2012) (declaratory judgment and insurer's burden to prove exclusion)
Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Lyon, 1997 S.D. 50 (S.D. 1997) (standard of review for declaratory judgments)