State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Gibbs, 0:13-cv-00524

On December 16, 2011, 18-year-old Bradley Gibbs was seriously injured as a passenger in a car crash and sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under his mother Rita Gibbs’s State Farm policy.
Gibbs had moved from his mother’s St. Peter home to an apartment in North Mankato in September 2011; he was not on the apartment lease, worked part-time seasonally, kept some belongings and cats at his mother’s house, received mail there, and visited/overnighted frequently.
Rita obtained the State Farm policy in November 2011 and listed herself as the only household member; State Farm later denied coverage for Gibbs, asserting he was not a “resident relative” at the time of the accident.
The Policy defined “resident relative” as a relative who “resides with you,” and included the clause: “A person resides in the same household with you if that person’s home is usually in the same family unit, even though temporarily living elsewhere.”
Gibbs had signed a notarized affidavit to Progressive after the accident stating his North Mankato address and that no relatives lived with him; Gibbs later testified he was medicated when he signed it. Both parties moved for summary judgment.
The court found genuine disputes of material fact about Gibbs’s intent and the temporariness of his apartment stay and denied both summary judgment motions, sending the case to trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State Farm)	Defendant's Argument (Gibbs)	Held
Whether Gibbs was a “resident relative” under the Policy at the time of the accident	Gibbs was not a resident relative because he lived at the North Mankato apartment, was listed as living separately (Progressive affidavit), and Rita told State Farm no one lived with her when she applied	Gibbs remained part of his mother’s family unit, intended the apartment stay to be temporary, retained ties (mail, belongings, visits), and planned to move back	Denied summary judgment to both sides — genuine factual dispute about intent/temporariness for a jury to decide

Lott v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 541 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. 1995) (defines “household” as a social unit and directs inquiry into the relationship to the family unit)
Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Viktora, 318 N.W.2d 704 (Minn. 1982) (articulates factors for residency: same roof, close informal relationship, intended duration)
Fruchtman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 142 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1966) (residency is generally a question of fact turning on intent to return)
Wood v. Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co., 415 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (lists factors including age, separate residence, self-sufficiency, frequency/duration of stays, and intent to return)
Skarsten v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 381 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (held temporary absences consistent with being part of parents’ household where the absentee considered the family home permanent)
Johnson v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 890 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (D. Minn. 2012) (determines residency as of the date of the event triggering coverage)