Miller v. Poole
45 A.3d 1143
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Helen Poole owned the insured home and was the named insured on Wall Rose's homeowners policy.
- Daniel Poole, Helen's grandson, resided at the Poole home from April 1, 2005, to the fire on September 2, 2005.
- A fire caused by Daniel lighting a stove led to damages to the Millers' adjacent property; Wall Rose refused to defend Daniel or indemnify.
- Millers filed a declaratory judgment action seeking Wall Rose's duty to indemnify Daniel; trial court granted Wall Rose summary judgment, Millers appealed.
- Policy provides coverage to 'you' and 'your relatives if residents of 'your' household' but ambiguity exists in defining 'resident' and 'household'.
- Court held Daniel Poole was a resident of the insured premises at the time of the fire and thus an insured under the policy; reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Wall Rose cover Daniel Poole as an insured? | Daniel was a resident of Helen Poole's household at the time of the fire. | Daniel cannot be a resident since the insured's death ended the household. | Yes; Poole was an insured as a resident of the insured premises. |
| Is the term 'household' ambiguous and should ambiguity be construed in the insured's favor? | Ambiguity exists; language should be construed in favor of the insured. | The trial court correctly applied prior Pennsylvania definitions of 'household' denying coverage. | Ambiguity exists; language construed in favor of insured; Poole is an insured. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boswell v. S. Carolina Insurance Co., 353 Pa. Super. 108, 509 A.2d 358 (1986) (household meaning and membership analysis)
- Manross, 939 A.2d 958 (Pa. Super. 2007) (resident vs. houseguest distinction for a grandchild's presence)
- In re Residence Hearing Before the Board of School Directors, 560 Pa. 366, 744 A.2d 1272 (2000) ( Residence evidenced by physical place of abode)
- In re Lesker, 377 Pa. 411, 105 A.2d 376 (1954) (habitation vs. abode terminology)
- Norman v. Pennsylvania National Insurance Co., 453 Pa. Super. 569, 684 A.2d 189 (1996) (sporadic visits not a residence)
- Gibson v. Callaghan, 158 N.J. 662, 730 A.2d 1278 (1999) (resident of your household ambiguous when insured premises change occupancy)
- Erie Insurance Exchange v. Conley, 29 A.3d 389 (Pa. Super. 2011) (ambiguity in policy language; interpret in insured's favor)
- Jerry's Sport Center, Inc. v. American and Foreign Ins. Co., 606 Pa. 584, 2 A.3d 526 (2010) (contract interpretation principles for insurance policies)