In this consolidated breach of a contract case and declaratory judgment action, defendant Mark Marler appeals the grant of a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Cameron Mutual Insurance Company. We affirm.
On appeal from a summary judgment, we “review the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered.”
ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp.,
The undisputed facts are as follows: Blu-ford and Marian Lewis inherited a farm (“the property”) in the early 1960s in Iberia. Since then, they have used the house whiсh is located on the farm as a vacation home; their primary residence was in Webster Groves. During all times relevant to thе instant case, the Lewises carried one premises liability policy on their Webster Groves property and one on thеir Iberia property. The latter policy, which was underwritten by plaintiff, is the central focus of this appeal.
Beginning in 1988 and cоntinuing to the time of the instant trial, the Lewises permitted Martha, John and Michael Bird to reside in the Iberia house. Martha was the Lew-ises’ daughter, John was their son-in-law, and Michael was their grandson. Occasionally the Lewises would allow a few friends to hunt on the Iberiа property. On one of these occasions, October 28, 1990, John Bird negligently shot and injured defendant, a friend of the Lewises.
Defеndant brought suit against John, who filed a third-party claim against plaintiff alleging he was insured under the Iberia policy. Judgment was entered in fаvor of defendant and against John in the amount of $100,000. Subsequently, John assigned his rights under the Iberia policy to defendant.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether thеre exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether John’s actions were covered by the Iberia policy. The рolicy provides liability coverage for any “insured” and defines the term “insured,” in pertinent part, as follows:
1. Insured. The unqualified word “insured” includes
A. The named insured
B. If residents of his household, his spouse, the relatives of either, and any other person under the age of twenty-one in the care of an insured ... (emphasis added)
Under the rules of contract construction, ambiguous language in an insurance policy shall be construed agаinst the insurer because the insurer, as drafter of the agreement, is in a better position to avoid ambiguity.
Peters v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.,
collection of persons, whether relаted by consanguinity or affinity or not related at all but who live or reside together as a single group or unit which is of a permanent and domestic character, with one head, under one roof or within a single curtilage; who have a common subsistencе and who direct their attention toward a common goal consisting of their mutual interest and happiness. Id.
In applying this unambiguous definition, the Watt court held the evidеnce unequivocally revealed that an adult child did not reside in his parents’ household even though he and his wife lived on the seсond floor of his parents’ home. In making this determination, the court considered many factors, including: (1) the purposeful physicаl separation of the two couples by turning the upstairs portion of the house into a self-contained apartment; (2) an agreement to share the financial costs associated with the upstairs apartment; (3) the complete self-reliаnce in paying for personal and living expenses; and (4) the total independence in making family decisions.
In the instant casе, the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, shows that there was a slightly increased level of interaction between the Birds and the Lewises stemming from the Birds’ residence in the Lewises’ vacation home. Without any discussion or agreement, the Lewises paid for maintenance and improvements of the property “because it [was] their house”, while the Birds performed some of the maintenance on the property in order “to have a comfortable home”. The Lewises permitted the Birds to five on the Iberia property rent free and each family paid for part of the utilities.
Other then this division of labоr and of financial responsibilities, there was no integration of the two families. Each family paid for their own personal expenses and other expenditures, each family made independent personal decisions, and each family performed their day-to-day and week-to-week activities to the exclusion of decision and participation by the othеr family. Furthermore, the Lewises continued to use the property as a vacation home for themselves and their friends.
We find thаt the relationship between the Birds and the Lewises was in the nature of guests and their hosts. The Lewises’ payment of most of the cоsts of the Iberia property and control of the use of the prop
Judgment affirmed.