Peerless Insurance Company v. Denise Luppe Peerless Insurance Company v. Christopher Henderson
118 A.3d 500
| R.I. | 2015Background
- Minor child Maya, whose parents were divorced with joint legal custody and physical placement with mother, regularly visited her father overnight twice weekly (Wednesdays and Sundays) at his house.
- Father owned a home where Maya kept clothes, toiletries, toys, and sometimes a bag for transfers; she typically slept in father’s bedroom during visits.
- While visiting her father on August 22, 2010, Maya was bitten by his dog and suffered serious injuries; mother sued on Maya’s behalf and individually.
- Father tendered defense to his homeowner’s insurer, Peerless, which sought a declaratory judgment that Maya was an "insured" as a resident of his household and thus excluded from liability coverage.
- Parties agreed facts were undisputed and cross-moved for summary judgment; Superior Court granted judgment for Peerless that Maya was a resident of father’s household; both parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Peerless's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maya was a "resident" of father’s household for insurance exclusion | Maya’s regular overnight visits, personal items at father's home, and intent to continue establish residency | Mother: residency tied to custody award and school/tax records; Father: policy term ambiguous, construed against insurer | Maya was a resident of father’s household; exclusion applied and insurer not liable |
| Admissibility/weight of family-law expert affidavit asserting child resided only with mother | Affidavit irrelevant; residency is factual/legal inquiry under insurance test | Affidavit should be controlling given family court placement | Affidavit was legal conclusion, not raising factual dispute; hearing justice properly discounted it |
| Whether term "resident" in policy is ambiguous | Term clear in context and not ambiguous | Term ambiguous; ambiguity should be construed against Peerless | Term not ambiguous; interpreted by established legal test |
| Applicable test for "resident" and its application | Carrera/Barricelli factors apply; child can have multiple residences | Defendants urged narrower construction to favor coverage | Court applied Carrera/Barricelli totality-of-circumstances test and found residency at father’s home |
Key Cases Cited
- Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Carrera, 577 A.2d 980 (R.I. 1990) (adopts four-factor residency test focusing on physical presence and intent)
- Barricelli v. American Universal Ins. Co., 583 A.2d 1270 (R.I. 1990) (applies Carrera to child of divorced parents; a child may have multiple residences)
- Koziol v. Peerless Insurance Co., 41 A.3d 647 (R.I. 2012) (ambiguity in insurance policies is construed against insurer; ambiguity is a question of law)
- Flather v. Norberg, 377 A.2d 225 (R.I. 1977) (source of the four-factor residency test used in insurance context)