Susan R. White & a. v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company & a., 167 N.H. 153

On July 3, 2011, Susan White was injured by a dog owned by Charles Matthews while Matthews was staying at his mother’s home in Moultonborough, NH, insured by Vermont Mutual.
The homeowner’s policy covered “residents of your household who are … your relatives,” but did not define “resident.”
Matthews lived in Massachusetts since about 2000, owned a Somerville condominium (used as his primary residence), and testified he spends ~80% of the year in Massachusetts; he also maintained NH ties (NH driver’s license, voter registration, vehicle registration) from earlier residency.
Petitioners sought a declaratory judgment that Matthews was an insured “resident relative” under the Vermont Mutual policy; trial court found he was not and denied coverage.
The Supreme Court reviewed de novo policy interpretation but gave deference to the trial court’s factual findings and required Vermont Mutual to prove lack of coverage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Matthews was a “resident”/"resident relative" under the policy	Matthews (and petitioners) argued he used the Moultonborough home and therefore was a resident of the insured household	Vermont Mutual argued Matthews’ principal abode was Massachusetts and he did not regard Moultonborough as his principal place of abode	Held: Not a resident relative; Matthews’ principal abode was Massachusetts, so no coverage
Whether the policy term “resident” is ambiguous	Plaintiffs argued the policy should be read to cover relatives who use a vacation home and that ambiguity exists	Vermont Mutual argued New Hampshire precedents supply an objective definition of “resident” and the policy is unambiguous	Held: Term is unambiguous under NH case law (requires physical dwelling and regarding it as principal abode); no ambiguity found
Whether a person can be resident of a vacation home (or multiple residences) for coverage	Plaintiffs contended an insured can have more than one residence and the Moultonborough home could qualify	Vermont Mutual argued sharing the named insured’s household is required and petitioners did not show Matthews was resident of insured’s primary household	Held: Even assuming multiple residences possible, policy requires membership of the insured’s household; Matthews was not resident of mother’s household (including her primary Florida residence), so not covered

Belanger v. MMG Ins. Co., 153 N.H. 584 (2006) (defines "residence" as physical dwelling that is regarded as principal place of abode)
Bates v. Phenix Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 156 N.H. 719 (2008) (policy terms construed as would a reasonable insured; unambiguous language controls)
Limoges v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 134 N.H. 474 (1991) (facts determine household membership; nonpermanent presence can still qualify in some contexts)
Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carr, 130 N.H. 698 (1988) (adult who established residence elsewhere was not a resident of insured’s household despite some ties)
Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Martin, 132 N.H. 593 (1989) ("household" means group dwelling as a family under one roof)
Concord Group Ins. Cos. v. Sleeper, 135 N.H. 67 (1991) (limited weight to subjective intent in youth/emancipation contexts; factual disputes can preclude summary judgment)
Damore v. Winnebago Park Ass’n, 876 F.2d 572 (7th Cir. 1989) (vacation cottage did not constitute separate household from primary residence; residence requirement controls)