2017 Ohio 8406
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On July 23, 2015 Sue Lowe was struck by a car and incurred over $250,000 in medical bills.
- Sue sued the tortfeasor’s insurer and pursued UIM claims against her own insurer (State Farm) and against Farmers, which insured her son William.
- William, his wife, and children moved into Sue’s home on June 14, 2015 while awaiting construction of their new house; William did not transfer title, utilities, or pay rent, and stored his furniture in storage.
- William’s Farmers auto policy listed a different address; he and his agent characterized the move to Sue’s house as temporary; William changed the policy address only after the accident.
- The trial court granted summary judgment and declaratory relief to Sue, concluding Sue was a family member "resident of [William’s] household" and so covered under William’s UIM coverage; Farmers appealed.
- The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact about whether William’s residence at Sue’s was temporary and whether Sue was a resident of William’s household, reversed the grant of summary judgment to Sue, and affirmed denial of Farmers’ summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sue qualified as a "family member" and "resident" of William's household under William's Farmers UIM policy | Sue argued she lived at William's household address (1591 St. Charles) on the injury date, making her a resident family member entitled to coverage | Farmers argued William's move into Sue's home was temporary, his policy listed a different address, and Sue was not a resident of William's household | Court held there are genuine factual disputes (intent, temporariness, address change) about household residency; reversed grant to Sue and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether summary judgment for Sue was appropriate | Sue argued undisputed evidence established household coincidence and coverage as a matter of law | Farmers argued material facts remain disputed and summary judgment was improper | Court held summary judgment for Sue was improper because factual issues exist regarding residency and temporariness |
| Whether Farmers was entitled to summary judgment | Farmers argued no coverage as a matter of law because Sue was not a resident of William’s household | Sue argued the household was at Sue’s address and she resided in William’s household | Court affirmed denial of Farmers’ summary judgment due to disputed facts |
| Standard for interpreting household/resident under Ohio law | Sue relied on policy language and evidence of cohabitation | Farmers relied on precedents requiring nontemporary/regular living arrangements for residency | Court applied Ohio precedents and found temporariness is the primary consideration, leaving the question to factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Shear v. Western American Ins. Co., 11 Ohio St.3d 162 (Ohio 1984) (defines "household" as those dwelling under the same roof composing a family)
- Gomolka v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 166 (Ohio 1982) (insurance contract language given natural and commonly accepted meaning)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment burden rules)
- Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. v. Taylor, 39 Ohio App.3d 86 (Ohio Ct. App.) (resident of household excludes temporary/transient visitors)
- Am. States Ins. Co. v. Guillermin, 108 Ohio App.3d 547 (Ohio Ct. App.) (primary consideration is nontemporary/regular nature of living arrangement)
- Napier v. Banks, 19 Ohio App.2d 152 (Ohio Ct. App.) (temporary return to parents’ home militates against merging households)