Schill v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (Slip Opinion), 141 Ohio St. 3d 382

Background

Decedent Miles Cobrun was killed in 2008; Robert Schill (driver) settled with his own insurer and sought additional coverage under his parents’ umbrella policy issued by Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC).
CIC denied coverage on the ground that Robert was not an insured “resident relative,” because he did not share the same legal residence of domicile as his parents under the policy definition.
Robert lived at 16800 Orange Lane, Auburn Township, Ohio (owned one-third). His mother Jean was domiciled in Florida; his father James had lived in Bonita Springs, Florida, since 1993 but spent ~2 weeks per month in Ohio working as CEO of an Ohio business and stayed at Robert’s Auburn home while in Ohio.
James maintained Florida driver’s license, voted in Florida, bank accounts and primary medical/dental care in Florida, kept most personal property in Florida, and planned his Ohio visits to avoid Ohio tax-residency thresholds; he testified Florida was his residence and he intended to return there after Ohio visits.
Trial court granted summary judgment for CIC holding James’s domicile was Florida; the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed, concluding James’s regular, long-term work presence in Ohio established Ohio domicile and thus Robert was an insured.
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the sole legal question of the meaning of “domicile” and whether James had only one domicile, and reversed the appellate court, holding James’s domicile was Florida.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Spaeth)	Defendant's Argument (CIC/James)	Held
Whether James’s domicile was Ohio or Florida for policy’s “legal residence of domicile” requirement	James’s regular, recurring multi-day presence and active CEO role in Ohio show he never abandoned Ohio domicile	James moved to Florida in 1993, maintained indicia of Florida domicile (license, voting, bank accounts, home, doctor), and intended Florida as permanent home	Held Florida was James’s domicile; work trips to Ohio were transient and consistent with Florida domicile
Whether Robert was a “resident relative” (shared legal domicile with a named insured)	Because James’s domicile was Ohio, Robert shared domicile and thus is an insured	If James’s domicile was Florida, Robert did not share legal domicile and is not an insured	Held Robert was not an insured “resident relative” under the umbrella policy
Proper legal test for domicile in Ohio	(Appellate court) Emphasized factual primacy of regular presence/work in Ohio leading to Ohio domicile	(CIC) Domicile requires residence plus intent to remain and return; one has only one domicile	Held: Domicile = true, fixed, permanent home + intent to remain and return; a person can have multiple residences but only one domicile
Whether appellate court improperly resolved factual issues on summary judgment	Spaeth argued no genuine issue of material fact; appellate court resolved as matter of law	CIC argued appellate court weighed evidence and should have remanded for factfinding	Held court addressed only legal standard of domicile and reversed on application; Ohio Supreme Court decided legal issue presented (did not remand)

Key Cases Cited

Sturgeon v. Korte, 34 Ohio St. 525 (1878) (classic definition of domicile: true, fixed, permanent home to which one intends to return)
Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619 (1914) (domicile requires physical presence plus intention to remain; motive irrelevant)
Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939) (residence in fact coupled with purpose to make place one’s home are essential elements of domicile)
In re Hutson's Estate, 165 Ohio St. 115 (1956) (evidence-of-intent analysis; fact questions on domicile)
Fuller v. Hofferbert, 204 F.2d 592 (6th Cir. 1953) (distinguishes residence and domicile; multiple residences vs single domicile)
Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (standard for construing evidence in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)