Nationwide Property Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kavanaugh, 2013 Ohio 4730

Kavanaugh purchased a duplex property at 20 and 22 North Upland Ave., Dayton, for $18,000 in May 2009 and intended it as a residence for herself and family.
Nationwide issued an owner-occupied homeowner policy on June 13, 2011, after agent representations that Kavanaugh would reside at the property.
Arson destroyed the property on March 25, 2012; Kavanaugh submitted a proof of loss seeking $182,588.00.
Nationwide conducted an investigation and concluded Kavanaugh did not reside at 20 North Upland and the property had been vacant prior to the fire.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Nationwide, finding no coverage due to lack of residence, and denied Kavanaugh’s motions to strike affidavits; the affidavits were not relied upon in the ruling.
On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that Kavanaugh did not reside at the insured premises at the time of the fire.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kavanaugh resided at the insured premises on the fire date	Kavanaugh maintained a residence at 20 North Upland.	Kavanaugh’s presence and intent created dual residency.	No; Kavanaugh did not reside there on the fire date.
Whether the trial court erred in not striking affidavits	Affidavits should have been stricken.	Affidavits were admissible but not relied upon.	Moot; affidavits not considered in the ruling.

Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Koby, 124 Ohio App.3d 174 (11th Dist.1997) (duality of residency may apply to coverage; residence not sole criterion when policy contemplates a broader household)
Hicks v. Mennonite Mut. Insurance Co., 2011-Ohio-499 (2d Dist. Miami No. 10-CA-17) (ambiguous meaning of resides; broad construction for coverage)
Whitaker v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 2004-Ohio-5270 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20474) (reside requirement not met where dwelling used as rental; occupants not primary residents)
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107 (1995) (ambiguity rule; strict against insurer when reasonably susceptible)
King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 208 (1988) (interpret contract language against insurer; favor insured when ambiguity exists)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary judgment burden on moving party; must show no genuine issues)
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (summary judgment standard and burdens)
Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (6th Dist.1983) (standard for reviewing summary judgments)