This story is reprinted with permission from FC&&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
Generally, auto insurance policies are issued to cover all members of a household. But the question of who is deemed a member of a particular household can be tricky with the complicated living arrangements common in the 21st century. For example, when a boyfriend is injured is he covered by his live-in girlfriend's insurance policy? The answer is a solid “maybe,” depending on the state law and policy terms.
|The case
Anita M. Byrd was driving a car in Wilmington, Del., that was side-swiped by another vehicle. Her passenger, Jeffrey Lockhart, was injured and sought personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from her insurer, Progressive Northern Insurance Company.
Lockhart said that he had been living with Byrd for more than seven months and was entitled to PIP benefits as a member of her household.
Progressive denied Lockhart's claim, asserting that he was not a “household resident” of Byrd's home entitled to coverage under her policy because he was not economically dependent on her.
Lockhart disagreed, contending that Delaware law did not require economic dependency and the fact that he lived with Byrd was sufficient to satisfy the common meaning of household member.
Lockhart sued, and the insurer moved for summary judgment.
Related: What you should know about auto accident liability exclusions
|The trial court's decision
The Delaware trial court granted the insurer's motion.
In its decision, the court explained that the Progressive policy provided coverage to Byrd as the named insured and to “a relative” or “any other household resident who is economically dependent on the named insured.” The policy, the district court found, incorporated the economically dependent language from an insurance department regulation, was not “ambiguous,” and did not violate Delaware law.
The court acknowledged that Lockhart had testified that he and Byrd were boyfriend and girlfriend and that he was “[i]n the process of proposing.” It concluded that his “future intentions” were not pertinent to determining PIP benefits under the policy and that he was not insured under Byrd's PIP policy.
The case is Lockhart v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., No. CPU4-17-001788 (Del. Ct. Common Pleas March 19, 2018).
Editor's note: In this case, the auto policy carefully reflected the state insurance department regulation defining a non-relative member of the insured's household as a person who is “economically dependent” on the insured. As the kinds of non-traditional living arrangements continue to grow, agents, brokers and policyholders should consider possible limits on coverage under their policies and state rules.
Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., is the director of FC&S Legal, the editor-in-chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, and the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc. Email him at [email protected].
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].
