Mendota Insurance v. Gallegos, 232 Ariz. 126

Mendota Insurance issued a Mendota policy with underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage to Martin as named insured and to the named insured’s family members; “resident” and “household” were not defined in the policy.
Eric was injured in a car accident while a passenger in a friend’s vehicle and sought UIM coverage under Martin’s policy.
Martin had lived with his mother at the Peoria home for years, but in January 2009 moved some belongings to a rental house and allocated time between three residences.
Mart in listed the Peoria home as his residence on the insurance application, though he spent substantial time at a rental house and with his girlfriend.
The superior court found that, under the totality of circumstances, Martin maintained a household at the Peoria home and that Eric was a resident of that household.
Mendota appeals the ruling, challenging both the household determination and the resident status of Eric under the policy’s terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Martin’s household located at the Peoria home at the time of the accident?	Mendota argues Martin’s primary residence was elsewhere and not at Peoria.	Gallegos contends the totality of circumstances shows a household at Peoria despite other residences.	Yes; the court upheld the household at Peoria.
Was Eric a resident of Martin’s household at the time of the accident?	Mendota contends Eric was not a resident of Martin’s household given his limited ties.	Gallegos maintains Eric had ongoing intimate/familial ties and lived with Martin in a continuing household.	Yes; Eric was a resident of Martin’s household.
Should public policy preclude extending coverage due to disclosure issues?	Mendota argues lack of disclosure limits coverage.	Gallegos argues coverage is warranted by the intent and facts.	No; public policy did not defeat coverage under these facts.

Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Duzykowski, 131 Ariz. 428 (App. 1982) (factors guide household residency determination; not a single factor controls)
Oliver v. Farmers Ins. Co., 154 Ariz. 174 (App. 1987) (resident/household factors must be weighed collectively)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 151 Ariz. 591 (App. 1986) (definition of household involves a domestic unit living together under one roof)
Granillo v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 Ariz. 389 (App. 1977) (household requires a stable, enduring connection and dwelling relationship)
Heard v. Farmers Ins. Exch. Co., 17 Ariz. App. 193 (App. 1972) (relationship and dwelling context are key to household status)