Johnson v. Bartley, 321 Ga. App. 59

Johnson appeals trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Bristol West denying uninsured motorist coverage; policy issued to Johnson’s father in Tennessee; Johnson was removed from the policy in Oct. 2009; accident occurred Jan. 30, 2010; Johnson lived in Georgia at the time with a Georgia license and insurance; court applied Tennessee law to interpret policy terms and held Johnson was not an insured person.
Policy defines insured person to include “you” or a “family member” who is a resident of the household; residence = domiciled and actually living in the household; Johnson was living in Georgia but frequented Tennessee, disputed whether she actually lived with her parents.
Court held that under Tennessee law the terms “domiciled,” “actually living,” and “household” are unambiguous; Johnson was not actually living with her parents at the time of the accident.
Court analyzed whether Johnson could have two simultaneous residences but concluded she was not a resident of the father’s household; factors include domicile, actual living arrangements, and place of dwelling; Johnson’s Georgia residence was her primary dwelling at the time.
Result: affirming the trial court’s grant of Bristol West’s summary judgment on coverage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether policy terms are ambiguous under Tennessee law	Johnson argues terms like domicile, actually living, and household are undefined/ambiguous	Bristol West argues the terms are unambiguous under Tennessee law	Terms are unambiguous
Whether Johnson was an insured resident of her father’s household	Johnson was a member of the household and resided there	Johnson was not actually living with the father; Georgia residence predominates	Johnson not an insured person under the policy

Northland Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 916 S.W.2d 924 (Tenn. App. 1995) (‘live with’ means to dwell with; not a visitor)
McDonough v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 755 S.W.2d 57 (Tenn. App. 1988) (two residences; actual dwelling determines status)
Bearman v. Camatsos, 215 Tenn. 231 (385 S.W.2d 91 (1964)) (domicile concept and household meaning)
Simpson, 155 S.W.3d 134 (Tenn. App. 2004) (factors for residence in household; not strictly defined)
Gredig v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 891 S.W.2d 909 (Tenn. App. 1994) (similar residency interpretations in Tenn. policy cases)
Thomas v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 699 S.W.2d 156 (Tenn. App. 1983) (out-of-state placement; college student residency not controlling)
Weller v. Blake, 315 Ga. App. 214 (2012) (Georgia appellate guidance on summary judgment standards)